Be a Supporter!

4 more years!

  • 4,497 Views
  • 179 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 22:13:12 Reply

At 11/8/12 10:10 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: "Taxation Without Representation" is still relevant today because nobody that pays taxes officially agreed to pay taxes they just pre accept and assume paying a Tax Levy as empirical and just apathetically and unwittingly volunteer to forfeit their personal right to refuse to pay the "troll toll" AKA illegitimate Tax Levy. "Everyone believes it so it must be just"

Nothing you're describing here is a) grounded in reality or b) anyway remotely similar to the historical context of the phrase.

JeremyLokken
JeremyLokken
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 23
Animator
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 22:18:00 Reply

To get back on topic, change in the next 4 years.

Given knowing Obama's record, and the apparent shift, what are your predictions?

I think there's a shift in this country, but I don't think the shift is liberal. I think it's libertarian. WA and CO voted same-sex marriage, and WA for marijuana as a recreational drug. These are not liberal views, but smaller government views. Getting the government out of our lives. The majority of Americans still are conservative financially. They prefer not to raise taxes or larger Gov't heathcare plan paid by all. This was shown with the 2010 House Republican landslide wins, which are now acting as a firewall to total Obama oppression, and the negative feedback on Obamacare.

People still don't like big government. So conservatives lose on social issues, libertarians win which are being masked as liberal wins. I constantly speak with liberals who are into Ron Paul and am BAFFLED why they swing so far on the political spectrum to the right, and it's on social issues. They're really saying they want smaller government on these topics. When you get into the "tax the rich" scenarios, the views are in the minority. Anyone else seeing this?


Rainbow Animations <-- for my website.

JeremyLokken
JeremyLokken
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 23
Animator
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 22:22:00 Reply

Correction: CO voting on Marijuana, not same-sex.


Rainbow Animations <-- for my website.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 22:22:09 Reply

At 11/8/12 08:37 PM, LemonCrush wrote: And it should be.

No, that's not the way the Founding Fathers intended. The Fathers just wanted the people to have a check on the government, in reality the only thing equal were State and Federal governments.

At 11/8/12 08:37 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Really. On the FIRST DAY of his second term, the US bombed Yemen. Obama bombed Libya. He's continuing to bomb afghanistan. He's a warmonger.

That's taking action, a warmonger would be invading nations we don't like, what he's doing is carrying out the war we were already in. It's like saying he's leading a campaign of extermination if a police officer shoots a criminal.

Nah, his brand of corporate friendliness is more like "Hey, you can't stay in the black. Here's billions of tax payer dollars"

And you'll probably go off and talk about how he's hostile to business later on.

It IS a non-issue. At least to candidates running. I know this because they campaign on it, and do NOTHING about it in office.

There's 2 things they can do, 1. appoint Supreme Court Justices 2. try to pass an amendment banning it. The first thing is something that would take a long time since justices have life terms and can stay on as long as they want, the 2nd thing will never happen.

As opposed to Obama's totally complete and concise tax idea, right?

Yah he referred to his own plan he passed, which he lowered taxes.

Romney's plan was so simple a 3rd grader could grasp it. Let small businesses keep the money they earn. That is pretty self explanitory.

Nope. That's what he wants you to think, he pretty much just said "um get the economy going". In fact Obama brought up that Romney didn't finish his tax plan, hence the whole "doesn't add up" fiasco.

Do you honestly think, seriously, that if Romney was elected, that abortion would be outlawed?

Did you honestly read my post?

Hi, unemployment is above 16%.

Sure in Libertarian heaven, in the real world it's 7.9%.

Unemployment among young people (as of July 2012) was around 50% according to the BLS.

Of course define "young"

Business now have an extra tax burden on Obamacare.

No one is sure at this point.

Small businesses are closing all over the nation.

Not really, i've only heard they're unwilling to expand they're just not closing.

Well, I agree with you there. THe two parties are almost identical to one another these days.

You mean the Libertarian party and Republican party?


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 22:28:37 Reply

At 11/8/12 10:13 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 11/8/12 10:10 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: "Taxation Without Representation" is still relevant today because nobody that pays taxes officially agreed to pay taxes they just pre accept and assume paying a Tax Levy as empirical and just apathetically and unwittingly volunteer to forfeit their personal right to refuse to pay the "troll toll" AKA illegitimate Tax Levy. "Everyone believes it so it must be just"
Nothing you're describing here is a) grounded in reality or b) anyway remotely similar to the historical context of the phrase.

Just keep being a sheep and you are a gonna see were it gets your "Nation in a a short time. We will see what other Rights and Liberties Obama relinquishes over the next 4 years.


BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 22:50:52 Reply

At 11/8/12 10:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Just keep being a sheep and you are a gonna see were it gets your "Nation in a a short time. We will see what other Rights and Liberties Obama relinquishes over the next 4 years.

That doesn't make anything what you said prior true. Come on. Shifting the argument whenever you lose a point is no way to conduct a debate (a Presidentil debate maybe).

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 23:14:15 Reply

At 11/8/12 10:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 11/8/12 10:28 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Just keep being a sheep and you are a gonna see were it gets your "Nation in a a short time. We will see what other Rights and Liberties Obama relinquishes over the next 4 years.
That doesn't make anything what you said prior true. Come on. Shifting the argument whenever you lose a point is no way to conduct a debate (a Presidentil debate maybe).

Ok let me offer another angle to you than. Consider the definition of theft for instance "Theft - In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."
If I don't agree to paying a tax levy it is theft against my person so long as the property in question which is money is legitimately owned and or earned by me. To pay taxes is to willingly accept your subservience as an economic slave and lesser being to the the "power elite".


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-08 23:25:07 Reply

At 11/8/12 10:18 PM, JeremyLokken wrote: To get back on topic, change in the next 4 years.

Given knowing Obama's record, and the apparent shift, what are your predictions?

I think there's a shift in this country, but I don't think the shift is liberal. I think it's libertarian. WA and CO voted same-sex marriage, and WA for marijuana as a recreational drug. These are not liberal views, but smaller government views.

Uh, what? Libertarians are an extremely loud minority like the tea party and will never have the full backing of the majority of Americans. The term "big government" and "small government" is almost exclusively used by conservatives as a way to draw certain connotations (big government: oppresion! democrats: oppression! republicans: LIBERTY!), but in the real world both Democrats and Republicans expand and contract the federal government relatively equally. You'd also have to explain to me what you mean by "big government" anyway, since it's such a meaningless platitude. What is your metric? The amount of money it spends? The amount of people it employs? How many departments it has? How many airplanes they have out in the sky spraying chemtrails?

Getting the government out of our lives.

Which government? State? Local? Federal? They're not the same nor do they operate on the same level. You're never going to fully get the government out of your life. Go to Somalia if you want that.

The majority of Americans still are conservative financially.

Explain what you mean by "conservative financially" and demonstrate recent economic policies in the United States that supports this.

They prefer not to raise taxes or larger Gov't heathcare plan paid by all. This was shown with the 2010 House Republican landslide wins, which are now acting as a firewall to total Obama oppression, and the negative feedback on Obamacare.

The percentage of Americans who do not want to raise taxes does not equal 100%, nor is it a majority opinion. You can talk about the 2010 Republican landslide in the House, but there was a Democratic landslide in the Senate just a few days ago. So which scenario actually represents the true America?

People still don't like big government. So conservatives lose on social issues, libertarians win which are being masked as liberal wins.

No, this is so far removed from reality I really don't know what to tell you. I'll give you a hint, though: political beliefs exist in a spectrum, which gives at least some degree of overlap in ideals even in polar opposite political philosophies.

JeremyLokken
JeremyLokken
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 23
Animator
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 00:55:13 Reply

At 11/8/12 11:25 PM, Feoric wrote:
Uh, what? Libertarians are an extremely loud minority like the tea party and will never have the full backing of the majority of Americans. The term "big government" and "small government" is almost exclusively used by conservatives as a way to draw certain connotations (big government: oppresion! democrats: oppression! republicans: LIBERTY!), but in the real world both Democrats and Republicans expand and contract the federal government relatively equally. You'd also have to explain to me what you mean by "big government" anyway, since it's such a meaningless platitude. What is your metric? The amount of money it spends? The amount of people it employs? How many departments it has? How many airplanes they have out in the sky spraying chemtrails?

Face it. if the liberals aren't careful, they will lose it all. Once the social issues have been agreed on, it comes down to finances, and liberals cannot budget when their voters want handouts. Obama voters are zealots, committed to the cause no-matter-what. And when there's nothing to show for it in 2016, you can't point the finger back to 2008 to get a new candidate. This lopsided party is going to fail unless it compromises in Congress. But you have Harry Reid wanting to change rules, weakening the balance of power. This is Hitler territory.

What is big government? It is judged on scale and success. Big government is the EPA fining homeowners for land repairs. Big government is Obama choosing Solyndra with our money, $500 million vanished. The failed stimulus. $800,000 went to Africa to teach men how to wash their genitalia after sex. It is corruption and it overreaches. It's 2 years without a budget. It's obviously not designed to operate on this level because it fails. This is me saying that Bush was a part of it for his overspending and too big to fail anti-capitalist approach, government funded private sector. I think rationally on politics and Obama voters will NEVER admit or accept blame. That's okay, it's not a terrible thing to be a zealot. It just doesn't work in our government, where success is measured on compromise, each party getting something in return. That was not the case for Obamacare.

Which government? State? Local? Federal? They're not the same nor do they operate on the same level. You're never going to fully get the government out of your life. Go to Somalia if you want that.

A lot of problems are resolved by removing governmental regulation. The reason there's still power outages in NYC (over a week after the storm!) is because Mayor Giuliani installed smaller generators, he did this to avoid regulatory oversight with the larger generators. Now we have state governments saying it's okay to smoke marijuana, but it's not okay to drink Big Gulps. That's fucked up. This is statewide government overreaching.

Explain what you mean by "conservative financially" and demonstrate recent economic policies in the United States that supports this.

2010 House Republican landslide victory and a continued 2012 majority. John Boehner said this Tuesday: The voters sent a message to Congress, to put a firewall on Obama's overreach. Americans simply do not want the overspending to continue. We understand the importance of being financially conservative, but both parties need to understand this.

The percentage of Americans who do not want to raise taxes does not equal 100%, nor is it a majority opinion.

It is a majority opinion. Ask yourself why the House swung Republican the first chance the voters had. They were unhappy with a lopsided Congress, because it did not represent the values of America. Was there anything major that happened before the House swung Repub? Obamacare. And how does this affect us? Well, there's 21 new taxes in it.

Obamacare: 21 New or Higher Taxes

Americans enjoy a lengthy history of hating taxes, and Obama gave this to us during a recession. It's safe to say he wasn't re-elected for his record on Obamacare. Any sane individual is RELIEVED that the House can balance the Senate, forcing them to work together. The lopsided Democratic Congress we once had was a failure.


Rainbow Animations <-- for my website.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 02:21:09 Reply

At 11/9/12 12:55 AM, JeremyLokken wrote: But you have Harry Reid wanting to change rules, weakening the balance of power. This is Hitler territory.

You just compared Harry Reid to Hitler. You've literally broken me. Godwin's Law has been pushed to its limits, causing my head to explode. Why did you do this to me, Jeremy? Why?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 03:56:18 Reply

Face it. if the liberals aren't careful, they will lose it all.

The liberals already won. They won a Senate majority and their candidate got reelected. He's not the one term president thr right promised he would be. Face it. A large percentage is coming to grips with the fact that the modern Republican party is rapidly losing credibility as they shift further and further to the right. The GOP has A LOT more to lose than the Democrats. Registered Republicans are becoming increasingly disillusioned with their party and no longer represent the conservative views they have held. The demographics are changing, and rapidly. More importantly, the demographic shift favors the left almost exclusively: immigration will inevitably make Texas turn purple, making it a hotly contested state in the Electoral College with the massive Latino vote. As long as the GOP doubles down on their views on religion, women, immigration and social issues like gay marriage, they will lose a massive amount of votes. It's up to the establishment to make that call: either side further right with the tea party lunatics, or move the overton window more towards the middle to become a moderate conservative party. A large chunk of the country sent the GOP a message on November 6th, and the message wasn't that they agreed with them. Judging by the apparent rift in the party between those who want to go more towards the middle vs those who want to double down, it's looking inevitable that there will be internal party faults and a schism will occur. I won't go as far to say it will be the death of the GOP, but it will certainly be interesting to watch over the next 4 years. Literally all signs are pointing to a significant boost in support of the Democratic party.

Once the social issues have been agreed on

Agreed on by who? How many women were outraged by Democratic congressman over their stances on rape and abortion? How many people were outraged by Democratic voter suppression? How many people were outraged by Democratic politicians on their comments about the lower class? Maybe, possibly, the ideals that the GOP has doubled down on belongs in the 1950s and not in the 21st century? Maybe there isn't a massive liberal agenda conspiracy infiltrating the media and the school system, and maybe people know better by now than to take the GOP seriously when they start sprouting misogynistic rhetoric and pushing the southern strategy to its limits?

it comes down to finances, and liberals cannot budget when their voters want handouts. Obama voters are zealots, committed to the cause no-matter-what. And when there's nothing to show for it in 2016, you can't point the finger back to 2008 to get a new candidate. This lopsided party is going to fail unless it compromises in Congress.

Man you really gobble this shit up. I'd love know who is asking for handouts. I'm sure we could have an intelligent discussion about those enormous corporate handouts, but you'd rather about talk stuff like OBAMA PHONE!! and it really just makes me sad. You literally make me sad, when there are so many valid criticisms that can be made against Obama, but all the right talks about are the most trite, boring, unimaginative empty platitudes imaginable crafted by right wing think tanks and shithead pundits on AM radio. Do you really not see the Republican obstructionism that almost caused a technical congressional default last year? The Democrats of all people need to compromise? You don't see the GOP being hijacked by the tea party? Don't you get sick of it? I mean, how could you REALLY think this? Is there honestly zero cognitive dissonance here? I feel something inside of me dying. I'm shutting down.

But you have Harry Reid wanting to change rules, weakening the balance of power. This is Hitler territory.

I hate to go back to this again but I keep reading this over and over again and I can't stop laughing. I'm surprised nobody knocked on my door to see if I was okay/being murdered when I first read this. How does anybody seriously write this without ripping it from an Onion article or a Colbert skit? I'm literally baffled. I don't think I will ever be the same ever again.

BarryLyndonIII
BarryLyndonIII
  • Member since: Sep. 24, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Musician
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 08:49:54 Reply

At 11/9/12 06:19 AM, Profanity wrote:
At 11/8/12 10:18 PM, JeremyLokken wrote: liberals who are into Ron Paul and am BAFFLED why they swing so far on the political spectrum to the right, and it's on social issues. They're really saying they want smaller government on these topics. When you get into the "tax the rich" scenarios, the views are in the minority. Anyone else seeing this?
Libertarianism isn't a right-wing ideology, it's a non-authoritarian ideology. It's closer to saying "360 people may walk 360 different paths) than "180 must follow me, 180 must stand here".

Libertarianism is a mixture of the right's views on small goverment stuff with the left's progressive views on social issues. At least that's how we understand it on my country.

uglybetty
uglybetty
  • Member since: Apr. 4, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 09:15:44 Reply

At 11/6/12 11:20 PM, koopahermit wrote: Obama is president for 4 more years!
Discuss.

Yikes! hope he actually does something now!

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 10:55:40 Reply

At 11/8/12 03:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Wages get deducted from gross income. So if the wages are deducted from gross income, how exactly does higher taxes, which do not cover income that goes to employee wages, hurt jobs?

Because, as offensive as the idea may be to you, a business owner does not run a company for the sake of giving people jobs, but to make a profit. Higher taxes limit profits and reduce the incentive to invest in production over the long run, which ultimately leads to lower output and fewer jobs. On the corporate level, lower corporate tax rates reduce the incentive to base operations overseas in lower-tax countries.

Like what? When your starting proposal is totally outrageous, like raising taxes on anyone during a recession, watering it down a bit doesn't make it a compromise.
So in order to compromise he has to give up the only point he wants? That's not compromise, that's submission.

Why is that the only point he wants? The goal is deficit reduction, not sticking it to rich people.

Pass the buck. Who needs personal responsibility when you're a Republican? Face it, Obamacare immitates the Republican proposal of a country 20 years more conservative, and now it's too liberal? Petty gamesmanship at its best. If things were different and the same exact legislation was called MCCaincare you can be damn sure that the Republicans would have cummed on it 100 times each.

Hardly. What was proposed in 1993 was never a rallying cry for republicans or conservatives; most conservatives hated the republican plan, and the bill died in committee.

such as the dramatic cuts to Medicare reimbursements,
If you had a shred of knowledge about the ACA you'd ralize those numbers are projected. Projected on what? Projected on less NEED to pay those reimbursements are a result of funnelling what is not dual medicare medicaid coverage into just one of the two programs.

No, that's not how it works at all, and what you're describing doesn't any sense. The providers are paid on a fee for service model, and they aren't paid twice for the same service if a patient is dual-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. What they're trying to do is reduce the healthcare utilization of those dual eligible people by managed care because they tend to be really unhealthy.
What the ACA does it attack hospitals and providers from both ends by cutting reimbursements and hitting private insurance companies, which providers rely on to stay afloat. Hospitals can't survive on Medicaid and Medicare patients alone; the government has special funds set up to pay these hospitals extra. ACA will cause hospitals to go bankrupt or be bought out by for-profit systems, which typically reduce the variety of healthcare services and according to some, provide lower-quality care. The entire bill depends upon these cuts.

the birth control mandates,
Because The Conservatives would rather pay hundreds of thousands per unwanted child than a few bucks here and there for a rubber... Penny pinchers only when they want to be.

Show me these people who can't afford a $5 box of condoms? Or $10 for birth control pills? How much you want to bet they have no problem getting their booze and cigarettes? It's never been about cost or access.

the overreach into private companies' budgets,
By providing them a cheaper alternative?

I was referring to insurance companies.

and the basic fact that the legislation, despite its trillion dollar price tag, does very little to actually bring down healthcare costs (the measures that could bring costs down cost relatively little to implement).
So the attempt to shift the payment of healthcare from a procedure based (whcih rewards subpar and shoddy work) to a quaity based system, thus ncouraging proper procedures the first time isn't saving money?

It is, but it doesn't cost $2 trillion dollars over 10 years. The biggest expense for the quality-based system is funding electronic medical record infrastructure, and the CMS incentive payments have only cost a few billion total over the past two or three years.

Encouraging people to get preventative care for simple things like exhaustion, constipation, toothaches, stomachaches and so on that are cheap to fix, but if left alone could become expensive problems such as intestinal rupture, absess, ulcers is more expensive?

Unfortunately, most preventative care costs about the same or even more than the treatment for those conditions because they are over-prescribed. Diagnostic imaging is the biggest example, and its why the government health agencies are now trying to get people to have fewer mammograms. Preventative care makes sense for the elderly people with chronic conditions, but I've never heard anything about how more physician office coverage would reduce health spending in the general population.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 11:08:43 Reply

At 11/9/12 12:55 AM, JeremyLokken wrote: Face it. if the liberals aren't careful, they will lose it all. Once the social issues have been agreed on, it comes down to finances, and liberals cannot budget when their voters want handouts.

So? Once the Republicans get into the 1990s with their social issues (let alone the 2010s) it will be a closers battle. Unlike with the social issues, economic governance is a case of reasonable minds can differ. That's fine with me.

Obama voters are zealots, committed to the cause no-matter-what.

What cause exactly? This faux cause of "Democrats be poor, want free shit" bull shit?

What is big government? It is judged on scale and success. Big government is the EPA fining homeowners for land repairs. Big government is Obama choosing Solyndra with our money, $500 million vanished. The failed stimulus. $800,000 went to Africa to teach men how to wash their genitalia after sex.

Really? That's all you can find? A one time bureaucratic misstep with the EPA, a stimulus that wasn't allowed to be big enough to be successul, and 500.8 million dollars of waste? That's it?

What about the millions of people who are both kept alive and kept out of the poorhouse by Medicare? Is that not a good thing?

That was not the case for Obamacare.

Obama WAS a comprimise! It was Republican idea brought up as an alternative to a government option, but once the Democrats actually went forward with it, the Republicans showed their true masters and said "sorry, no thanks, our platform is more important than the American Citizen!"

A lot of problems are resolved by removing governmental regulation. The reason there's still power outages in NYC (over a week after the storm!) is because Mayor Giuliani installed smaller generators, he did this to avoid regulatory oversight with the larger generators. Now we have state governments saying it's okay to smoke marijuana, but it's not okay to drink Big Gulps. That's fucked up. This is statewide government overreaching.

Have you ever stopped to think about WHY certain laws are in place? Doubtful.


2010 House Republican landslide victory and a continued 2012 majority. John Boehner said this Tuesday: The voters sent a message to Congress, to put a firewall on Obama's overreach. Americans simply do not want the overspending to continue. We understand the importance of being financially conservative, but both parties need to understand this.

John Boehner is a limp dick. He needs to be hushed up by the cooler heads in the GOP (all three of them left). Boehner has stared down extremely juicy compromises ($5 of cuts to every $1 tax increase) yet he says "Fuck the American people, GOP forever!"

It is a majority opinion. Ask yourself why the House swung Republican the first chance the voters had. They were unhappy with a lopsided Congress, because it did not represent the values of America. Was there anything major that happened before the House swung Repub? Obamacare. And how does this affect us? Well, there's 21 new taxes in it.

Obamacare: 21 New or Higher Taxes

List em.

Americans enjoy a lengthy history of hating taxes, and Obama gave this to us during a recession. It's safe to say he wasn't re-elected for his record on Obamacare. Any sane individual is RELIEVED that the House can balance the Senate, forcing them to work together. The lopsided Democratic Congress we once had was a failure.

Yet you think the "Our sole goal is the make Obama a one term President" Congress was effective? Congres is supposed to work FOR THE COUNTRY not against the President. Where the hell are your priorities?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 11:25:13 Reply

At 11/9/12 10:55 AM, adrshepard wrote: Why is that the only point he wants? The goal is deficit reduction, not sticking it to rich people.

ANY SANE PERSON knows that you MUST raise the taxes to get out the debt. MUST. Congress sayng the only compromise in the form of raising taxes will be never raising taxes is not asking for compromise, but capitulation.

No, that's not how it works at all, and what you're describing doesn't any sense. The providers are paid on a fee for service model, and they aren't paid twice for the same service if a patient is dual-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. What they're trying to do is reduce the healthcare utilization of those dual eligible people by managed care because they tend to be really unhealthy.

Patients who are dual eligible get double covered. Not that the prvider gets paid double, but they get redundant services.

What the ACA does it attack hospitals and providers from both ends by cutting reimbursements and hitting private insurance companies, which providers rely on to stay afloat. Hospitals can't survive on Medicaid and Medicare patients alone; the government has special funds set up to pay these hospitals extra. ACA will cause hospitals to go bankrupt or be bought out by for-profit systems, which typically reduce the variety of healthcare services and according to some, provide lower-quality care. The entire bill depends upon these cuts.

From both ends? What? The ACA helps private insruance companies. Or are you trying to tell me that an immediate 30 million new required customers for an industry is bad?

Show me these people who can't afford a $5 box of condoms? Or $10 for birth control pills? How much you want to bet they have no problem getting their booze and cigarettes? It's never been about cost or access.

And that means I should have to pay dramatically more for the outcome because you are too damn proud to do the right thing?

I was referring to insurance companies.

By giving them millions of new customers and forcing their contracts to no longer be unconscionable? (i.e. "we will protect you in the case of uillnes, but not only do we have the right to reject ANY illness claim, we have the right to completely deny your service for any reason, including you getting that very illness you went to us for.")

It is, but it doesn't cost $2 trillion dollars over 10 years. The biggest expense for the quality-based system is funding electronic medical record infrastructure, and the CMS incentive payments have only cost a few billion total over the past two or three years.

It will take time for the system to be set up, after which it will largely begin to run on its own. Until that point it must be funded.

Unfortunately, most preventative care costs about the same or even more than the treatment for those conditions because they are over-prescribed. Diagnostic imaging is the biggest example, and its why the government health agencies are now trying to get people to have fewer mammograms. Preventative care makes sense for the elderly people with chronic conditions, but I've never heard anything about how more physician office coverage would reduce health spending in the general population.

A mammogram costs $100. The difference between early detection and beyond the terminal threshold detection can be well into the millions. So exactly HOW are mammograms not saving money? A dentist appointment cost several hundred dollars. An absess treatment can run well above $50,000. Pre kidney failure costs about $3000 a year. Dialysis costs $100,000 a year. Fixing constipation runs from $100-a couple thousand (pfft, cost me $2). Fixing a ruptured colon can easily run well above $100,000.

Again, how exactly is preventative care NOT cheaper than big ticket care?

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 11:27:50 Reply

At 11/9/12 03:56 AM, Feoric wrote: The demographics are changing, and rapidly. More importantly, the demographic shift favors the left almost exclusively: immigration will inevitably make Texas turn purple, making it a hotly contested state in the Electoral College with the massive Latino vote. As long as the GOP doubles down on their views on religion, women, immigration and social issues like gay marriage, they will lose a massive amount of votes.

Why, because the Democrats will never be able to make a more attractive proposal to Hispanics than the Dream Act? Or for basic contraception coverage? Or some definition of gay marraige? Democrats will always be able to go further to the left than the GOP on immigration and women's issues, and there simply aren't enough gays in the US to compensate for the disillusionment some conservatives would experience after an outright republican endorsement of gay marraige.

I won't go as far to say it will be the death of the GOP, but it will certainly be interesting to watch over the next 4 years. Literally all signs are pointing to a significant boost in support of the Democratic party.

Yeah right. People said the same thing about the Democratic party in 2004 and look what happened. This was a turnout election in which the GOP base stayed home.

Agreed on by who? How many women were outraged by Democratic congressman over their stances on rape and abortion? How many people were outraged by Democratic voter suppression? How many people were outraged by Democratic politicians on their comments about the lower class?

Not the lower class, in most polls Romney had a significant advantage among the working class and those lacking an higher education.
The only people who were upset about so-called voting "suppression" were minorities and the very poor who somehow live without IDs. He was never going to win those votes anyway.
And saying Atkin represents the entire republican party? Really? Why not say they're all closet homosexuals because of Larry Craig? Meanwhile I'll brand all democratic party members in terms applicable to Gary Condit.

it comes down to finances, and liberals cannot budget when their voters want handouts. Obama voters are zealots, committed to the cause no-matter-what. And when there's nothing to show for it in 2016, you can't point the finger back to 2008 to get a new candidate. This lopsided party is going to fail unless it compromises in Congress.
Man you really gobble this shit up. I'd love know who is asking for handouts.

The poor and those who like to think of themselves as "middle class" but can't feed themselves or their families without government assistance. Those like Sandra Fluke who think other people should pay for their birth control. Those who think that they are entitled to mortgage relief because they were too stupid to understand what an adjustable rate mortgage could entail. Those who think they have an inalienable right to recieve subsidized medical care despite the fact that they make far too much and have too many assets to be eligibile for Medicaid. And while they aren't asking for handouts directly, I'd include the group of people who either resent the wealthy for their money or can't recognize the fundamental iniquity of demanding more of people's money that they earned themselves to fund a massively bloated and inefficient government.
.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 11:38:49 Reply

At 11/8/12 10:22 PM, Warforger wrote:
No, that's not the way the Founding Fathers intended. The Fathers just wanted the people to have a check on the government, in reality the only thing equal were State and Federal governments.

No they wanted the government to have no power over our personal lives. Look at the Bill of Rights, it's pretty obvious.

That's taking action, a warmonger would be invading nations we don't like, what he's doing is carrying out the war we were already in. It's like saying he's leading a campaign of extermination if a police officer shoots a criminal.

Yeah, the world threat of Yemen, right?

Justify it whatever way you want, we're bombing and killing unprovoked

And you'll probably go off and talk about how he's hostile to business later on.

Depends on the business. Huge CEO and multi-national conglomerates. "Here's some money. Hey I'll even pass a law that REQUIRES people to buy your product!". Small business. "Eat shit, I have more failing companies to prop up"

There's 2 things they can do, 1. appoint Supreme Court Justices 2. try to pass an amendment banning it. The first thing is something that would take a long time since justices have life terms and can stay on as long as they want, the 2nd thing will never happen.

And no candidate would ever outright ban abortion. It's too touchy an issue. They campaign on it, and never make actual moves on it. They bumble around to look like they are, but nothing is ever actually done. Case and point, we've had many republicans in office, abortion is still not banned.

Yah he referred to his own plan he passed, which he lowered taxes.

Actually, he didn't LOWER them. He raised them on businesses and families making $250K+. Not to mention his law passed requiring Americans to buy something they can't afford.

Nope. That's what he wants you to think, he pretty much just said "um get the economy going". In fact Obama brought up that Romney didn't finish his tax plan, hence the whole "doesn't add up" fiasco.

Except you're being an idiot about this. "That's what he wants you to think" is not even an argument. Obama said it didn't add up. "That's just what he wants you to think"

Sure in Libertarian heaven, in the real world it's 7.9%.

No, it really is. That's from BLS

Of course define "young"

I believe the report cited ages 16-25. Read the report.

No one is sure at this point.

Yes they are. "That's just what democrats want you to think"

Not really, i've only heard they're unwilling to expand they're just not closing.

I can take pictures of gutted business plaza's if you'd like. Been to detroit recently? How about DC? How about any major city?

You mean the Libertarian party and Republican party?

Hmm, no. Democrats and Republicans. The libertarian party has almost nothing in common with the modern republican party...not sure where you got that from...

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 11:40:43 Reply

At 11/9/12 08:49 AM, BarryLyndonIII wrote:
Libertarianism is a mixture of the right's views on small goverment stuff with the left's progressive views on social issues. At least that's how we understand it on my country.

The right is not small government, the left is not progressive on social issues.

They claim to be on paper, but in reality, they aren't.

JeremyLokken
JeremyLokken
  • Member since: Dec. 16, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 23
Animator
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 11:49:26 Reply

When the liberals who voted Marijauna start small business practice, as they sell their weed, they'll see that 25% tax looming over them. They'll see the regulation preventing business growth. Which side will appeal to them now? You'll have the Democrats wanting to raise their taxes. You'll see the Conservatives wanting to lower that tax. You'll see a shift. Once the social issues have been decided, all that's left are the finances. And liberals lose on finances. How will the liberal base appeal to the public then? "Marijuana is harmful to children and we need to offer more regulation and raise the taxes to create awareness." They've just lost the people who voted for them. The worst thing they did was give the dangling carrot to the rabbit.

The libertarian party is to the right of the conservatives, but to the left of anarchy. It's a government so small, that it focuses on national security and basic stuff, like public construction. The liberal party is to the left of moderates, but to the right of a dictatorship or socialist government (Much like Hitler's nationalist party - Feoric remember what I said, this is Hitler's territory the progressives are moving towards. And when history repeats itself, me saying, "I told you so" won't stop it. I voted No for the movement. You fear for it now, instead of fear for it when the tanks are rolling in).

Like BarryLyndonIII said, libertarians: a mixture of social issues and views on small government. And these social issues are being decided right now. I'm actually happy that social issues are getting cleared up. Liberals will have nothing left. They got popular on championing for social issues, but now that these issues are out, there's nothing left to speak about. A platform on taking people's money?

How will the liberals appeal to the Latino vote? Hispanics believe in religion and marriage. Two things that the liberal base is losing values on. The DNC people voted to remove God from their platform this Summer. Take a single woman and a married woman. Single women vote Democrat, married women vote Republican. Latinos voted Bush on his 2nd term. Democrats have NOT solidified the Hispanic vote. And with Susana Martinez and Marco Rubio as two prominent Latin Republican leaders, Dems are in trouble. It's just that Hispanics were not convinced of Romney, they're value system hasn't changed.

I think the African-American vote is complex and sad. There are two major factors that no party is acknowledging. 1) A broken home-life, where the mother is left without a husband. 2) Black on black violence. Even Jesse Jackson looks away from that, towards white on black violence. We saw Joe Biden fear-mongering "Gonna put ya'll back in changes." When liberals talk to African-Americans, they see color first. Romney talked to the black crowd with the same platform he talked to the white crowd with. He got boo'ed for it, but he saw black Americans as Americans first. African-Americans have decided something important. That they want to be viewed as black people before being viewed as Americans. Yet that party doesn't solve their problems. It just goes to show you, a political party cannot solve your value system.

adrshepard - I think the goal WAS sticking it to the rich. Obama told a crowd of people that this was their chance at revenge. He used the word "Revenge" when voting.


Rainbow Animations <-- for my website.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 18:02:01 Reply

At 11/9/12 11:27 AM, adrshepard wrote: Why, because the Democrats will never be able to make a more attractive proposal to Hispanics than the Dream Act?

Moving to the center on immigration isn't going to win you Hispanics at such a level that you're going to win elections again. I have no doubt that the GOP is going to continue to double down on their stance on immigration, so I think you're wrong; the Democratic party is going to be the party with the biggest chunk of the minority vote on virtue on not being Republicans. To Hispanics, supporting a party which doesn't view them as parasitic immigrants is, I'd say, on the same level of appeal as the Dream Act. 88% of Romney voters were white. There is a reason why.

Or for basic contraception coverage? Or some definition of gay marraige? Democrats will always be able to go further to the left than the GOP on immigration and women's issues, and there simply aren't enough gays in the US to compensate for the disillusionment some conservatives would experience after an outright republican endorsement of gay marraige.

It's not the gays in this country that tipped the election to Obama. It's ludicrous to make that assumption. Granted, my evidence is anecdotal, but I've talked to many conservatives who either a) didn't vote this year or b) actually voted for Obama because of not just the GOP's stance on gay marriage, but their collective "traditional values" stance on social issues, which they've find regressive. The Democrats don't even have to worry about going "further to the left." They just not have to be the GOP, and that isn't a challenge.

Yeah right. People said the same thing about the Democratic party in 2004 and look what happened. This was a turnout election in which the GOP base stayed home.

Right, and look who turned out and for whom. Who does the GOP have right now that will be appealing to establishment Republicans, Independents, centrists and minorities in 2016? Jeb Bush? Chris Christie?

Not the lower class, in most polls Romney had a significant advantage among the working class and those lacking an higher education.

If this was true, why didn't Romney win Michigan and/or Ohio? Maybe he said something that offended the working class, but I can't seem to think what it could have been...

The only people who were upset about so-called voting "suppression" were minorities and the very poor who somehow live without IDs. He was never going to win those votes anyway.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm not very poor nor am I minority and I was pretty upset about it. It turned out to be a sort of blessing in disguise, since those very voter suppression laws actually helped Obama more than Romney.

And saying Atkin represents the entire republican party? Really? Why not say they're all closet homosexuals because of Larry Craig? Meanwhile I'll brand all democratic party members in terms applicable to Gary Condit.

Well, tell me, which party tries to make a distinction between "rape" and "forcible rape"? And which party tries to make the distinction in legislation?Here's one! Granted, the language was dropped to due to public outrage. The views Atkins holds is not fringe among Republican officials (but I will say he certainly doesn't represent Republican voters, since he disgusted so many of them). Atkins' problem is that isn't very good at being a GOP politician and doesn't know how to translate his reprehensible opinions into vague meaningless soundbites that includes the words "family" or "values" or "tradition" or whatever.

The poor and those who like to think of themselves as "middle class" but can't feed themselves or their families without government assistance.

Hmm, sounds like they want to be able to feed themselves and/or their families. I'm totally against that.

Those like Sandra Fluke who think other people should pay for their birth control.

Oh boy! Sandra Fluke! Hey, this is a perfect example of the GOP reaching out to women voters! Remember when Limbaugh said that asking for health insurance to cover contraceptives is equal to asking for money to have sex? And when Limbaugh said that Sandra Fluke wanting health insurance to cover contraceptives is the same exact thing as Sandra Fluke requesting payment for sex? And when Limbaugh then said that if taxpayers were paying for Sandra Fluke to have sex, (which through his superior logic they were) then the taxpayers should get something in return? And the return payment which Limbaugh suggested should be sex tapes of Fluke?

And remember when Fluke's testimony was actually for a friend? Who is a lesbian? Who uses birth control for things that have nothing to do with pregnancy?

Don't let that discourage you from touting Sandra Fluke as a talking point though, it really helps your case.

Those who think that they are entitled to mortgage relief because they were too stupid to understand what an adjustable rate mortgage could entail.

You're forgetting to mention the well known and highly prevalent practices of:
a) Telling people they were getting an fixed rate loan when it was actually an ARM, and
2) Lying to the customer about their ability to afford the rate when it reset.

Lying about the terms of the mortgages, the borrowers income in records, appraisal prices, and whether the borrower qualified for a fixed or ARM was systematic and institutionalized. With respect to foreclosures, fraud in terms of keeping track of who owed what was so bad that every single state in the country sued the mortgage industry as a whole.

But you can keep blaming it on the homeowners and not the nice honest businessmen.

Those who think they have an inalienable right to recieve subsidized medical care despite the fact that they make far too much and have too many assets to be eligibile for Medicaid.

Funny you talk about subsidies, when companies like Wal-Mart intentionally pay their employees at such a low wage they qualify for food stamps and medicaid in order to get the federal government to subsidize their profits. The lesson here is that social programs don't just help the poor, they also help the rich, or rather job creators if you like calling them that.

And while they aren't asking for handouts directly, I'd include the group of people who either resent the wealthy for their money or can't recognize the fundamental iniquity of demanding more of people's money that they earned themselves to fund a massively bloated and inefficient government.

I can't speak for others, but I love the rich and welcome them greatly! Their taxable income is invaluable.

S3C
S3C
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 03
Musician
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 18:15:59 Reply

At 11/7/12 01:04 AM, LemonCrush wrote: My opinion...presidents have two MAJOR overarching area that shape everything else.
Foreign/military policy and econ. policy.

Obama is a failure in both aspects. He's a killer (and proud to brag about it too), and doesn't hesitate to send people to kill and/or die for bullshit causes, meanwhile depriving men and women in uniform what they deserve (not just weapons, but also retirement and disability benefits). He does these things because he has ZERO military experience (too busy smoking weed, and snorting blow he says)

His economic policy is a shambles because he has no concept of true economics. He thinks the nation is run by CEOs and billionaires, so that who he caters to. He is ignorant to the fact that small businesses are the life blood of the economy. Hell, that dumbass thinks $250k is a lot of money for a small business!

1.) My "point" didn't have anything to do about national issues 2.) Republican and Democrat parties alike cater to the richest 3.) I'd like to see some credible sources where Obama "is a proud killer" and to where he does cocaine (or was that a joke?)...if you posted somewhere about that within this thread, just tell me where as I have just skimmed through the pages as of now

First off all considering the House of Representatives is pretty much run by the GOP, they will be able to negate some of what Obama wants to do.

More importantly, both the parties that actually have a chance in the Washington game are fueled by a corporate driven process...they are completely ran by banking agencies, Wallstreet, industrial complexes, billion dollar corporations who say "we'll give money to your party if you support this or this". It's going to be a while before a single vote truly has a quantitative effect on what goes on nationally. Both parties exaggerate a "plan" for the U.S. that never comes to fruition, and pander to and focus on emotionally driven, not really important issues like gay marriage (like I think you mentioned?) to reel in votes. Hence Obama/Romney = samefag. In the end who you vote for is going to leave a sour taste in your mouth, the party that loses will adopt the same trite "the sky is falling attitude" while people forget that America is still one of the best countries to live in, and not many nations even have the opportunity to criticize our politicians anywhere near to the degree we do. If Gore/Kerry/McCain/Romney was elected how can you be so sure that things would be all the brighter?

The problem is hardly who we vote for, but moreso the system, but even moreso than the system, the people who make up the system. if you want to actually have an effect on politics, and make the changes you want to see you do so by making a concerted effort on a LOCAL scale, not by endorsing the Left-Right penis measuring contest that goes on every four years.

Lastly considering the vast diversity of Americans we will all have a different set of morals and a different set of needs. And we are given to the freedom to express and support such. If you feel the need to instill what morals and values are objectively right, perhaps we should alter our government to a dictatorship. it's insulting and counterproductive (to expressing your ideals) to call someone who has different views from you "retarded"....instead when you and others could refrain from casting stones and cooperate on reaching a common ground.


If your work isn't worth fighting for, it's not worth uploading on NG, period. (JrHager84)

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 18:54:43 Reply

At 11/9/12 11:38 AM, LemonCrush wrote: No they wanted the government to have no power over our personal lives. Look at the Bill of Rights, it's pretty obvious.

They wanted a balance. Obviously they wanted the government to be in our lives, like say police or the military or taxes, but they didn't want it go unchecked. Hell some were even calling for a "Christian Sparta".

Yeah, the world threat of Yemen, right?

Al-Qaeda has alot of power there, you do realize that right?

Justify it whatever way you want, we're bombing and killing unprovoked

"unprovoked". Right, because terrorist attacks are unprovoked.

Depends on the business. Huge CEO and multi-national conglomerates. "Here's some money. Hey I'll even pass a law that REQUIRES people to buy your product!". Small business. "Eat shit, I have more failing companies to prop up"

Nope it's actually pretty bad for insurance companies, because now they actually have to cover people who you know might actually have to use their insurance. This also makes the market more competitive, which drives down the price, which lowers the burden on everyone. In the 90's this was called "Applying free market principles to the insurance industry" now it's "SOCIALISM!!!!".

And no candidate would ever outright ban abortion. It's too touchy an issue. They campaign on it, and never make actual moves on it. They bumble around to look like they are, but nothing is ever actually done. Case and point, we've had many republicans in office, abortion is still not banned.

That's why Supreme Court Justices aren't elected, they can decide however they want without repercussion.

Actually, he didn't LOWER them. He raised them on businesses and families making $250K+

Source.

:. Not to mention his law passed requiring Americans to buy something they can't afford.

Yah, competition is just a Liberal myth.

Except you're being an idiot about this. "That's what he wants you to think" is not even an argument. Obama said it didn't add up. "That's just what he wants you to think"

No, you're being an idiot about this. I point out that his plan is/was incomplete, so there were large holes in his plan leaving of course strange anomalies for Obama to attack.

No, it really is. That's from BLS

No, the BLS says 7.9%, not 16.

I believe the report cited ages 16-25. Read the report.

Well no shit, some of those don't need work, so of course they're going to have a high unemployment rate.

Yes they are. "That's just what democrats want you to think"

No, I've research those sources, businesses are holding out from expanding because they don't know how the healthcare law will effect them, there hasn't been any "businesses are closing down due to this law".

I can take pictures of gutted business plaza's if you'd like. Been to detroit recently? How about DC? How about any major city?

OH IT MUST BE BECAUSE OF THE HEALTHCARE LAW RIGHT!

Hmm, no. Democrats and Republicans. The libertarian party has almost nothing in common with the modern republican party...not sure where you got that from...

lolz. Gary Johnson and Ron Paul were elected as Republican candidates. The main difference between the two is that the libertarian party is more upfront with its insanity.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 18:57:32 Reply

At 11/9/12 06:15 PM, S3C wrote:
1.) My "point" didn't have anything to do about national issues 2.) Republican and Democrat parties alike cater to the richest 3.) I'd like to see some credible sources where Obama "is a proud killer" and to where he does cocaine (or was that a joke?)...if you posted somewhere about that within this thread, just tell me where as I have just skimmed through the pages as of now

We agree on 1 and 2 for the most part...though, Mitt Romney opposed the bailout...Obama has done nothing but brag about killing Bin Laden. He has also talked about his drug use in his book, where he admits dabbling in cocaine and marijuana use...

I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it...

First off all considering the House of Representatives is pretty much run by the GOP, they will be able to negate some of what Obama wants to do.

As it should be

more stuff

Well they're both run by corporatism, yes. But Romney opposed the bailout and corporate welfare.

Nowhere did I say people with opposing views are retarded, I said people who hate Bush, but support Obama, are retarded.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 19:07:40 Reply

At 11/9/12 06:54 PM, Warforger wrote: They wanted a balance. Obviously they wanted the government to be in our lives, like say police or the military or taxes, but they didn't want it go unchecked. Hell some were even calling for a "Christian Sparta".

Yes. BALANCE. We do not have that now. Get it.

Al-Qaeda has alot of power there, you do realize that right?

Now listen here, George Bush, "terrorism/war on terror" is no excuse for violent, savage bullshit.

"unprovoked". Right, because terrorist attacks are unprovoked.

Yemen. Terror nation. Got it.

Nope it's actually pretty bad for insurance companies, because now they actually have to cover people who you know might actually have to use their insurance. This also makes the market more competitive, which drives down the price, which lowers the burden on everyone. In the 90's this was called "Applying free market principles to the insurance industry" now it's "SOCIALISM!!!!".

Except it doesn't. The reason most American's don't have insurance, at least in my personal experience, is because they can't afford it. Now Obama is forcing Americans pay for something they could afford in the first place. People in my age group, out of college, don't have insurance because they can't afford it. I can barely make ends meet as is....how do you expect me to make an insurance payment on top of that? Just stop eating? Don't pay my power bill? Where am I to get the money from to pay for this insurance I don't even want?

That's why Supreme Court Justices aren't elected, they can decide however they want without repercussion.

Which is too much power.

Source.

His own mouth? He's gone on and on about how families making more than $250K/ a year need to "pay a little more". He even mentioned it in the debates...did you watch?

Yah, competition is just a Liberal myth.

Wat?

No, you're being an idiot about this. I point out that his plan is/was incomplete, so there were large holes in his plan leaving of course strange anomalies for Obama to attack.

His plan didn't have holes. That's just what Obama wanted you to think...see how rediculous that sounds?

No, the BLS says 7.9%, not 16.

No they don't

Well no shit, some of those don't need work, so of course they're going to have a high unemployment rate.

So, fuck them, right?

businesses are holding out from expanding because they don't know how the healthcare law will effect them

EXACTLY!

OH IT MUST BE BECAUSE OF THE HEALTHCARE LAW RIGHT!

Um, no

lolz. Gary Johnson and Ron Paul were elected as Republican candidates. The main difference between the two is that the libertarian party is more upfront with its insanity.

Hmm. Ron Paul wasn't even on my ballot and Gary Johnson was classified as the libertarian party...Nice to know you think freedom is insanity though. Interesting.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 21:38:01 Reply

At 11/9/12 07:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 11/9/12 06:54 PM, Warforger wrote: They wanted a balance. Obviously they wanted the government to be in our lives, like say police or the military or taxes, but they didn't want it go unchecked. Hell some were even calling for a "Christian Sparta".
Yes. BALANCE. We do not have that now. Get it.

No it's still there and it's only been increasing in terms of how much power the people have such as direct election of senators.

At 11/9/12 07:07 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
Al-Qaeda has alot of power there, you do realize that right?
Now listen here, George Bush, "terrorism/war on terror" is no excuse for violent, savage bullshit.

Ok? What would you recommend? Don't use our military ever?

"unprovoked". Right, because terrorist attacks are unprovoked.
Yemen. Terror nation. Got it.

Um no that's not what I said. Why do I have to keep explaining basic concepts to you?

Except it doesn't. The reason most American's don't have insurance, at least in my personal experience, is because they can't afford it. Now Obama is forcing Americans pay for something they could afford in the first place. People in my age group, out of college, don't have insurance because they can't afford it. I can barely make ends meet as is....how do you expect me to make an insurance payment on top of that? Just stop eating? Don't pay my power bill? Where am I to get the money from to pay for this insurance I don't even want?

Wow. You know this isn't the first time I've had to explain how the healthcare bill works, now you've just understood what a mandate is, maybe next you'll finally understand what it does after the 100th time you've talked about.

That's why Supreme Court Justices aren't elected, they can decide however they want without repercussion.
Which is too much power.

Nope. The Founders made sure that the Supreme Court would be the only branch exempt from popular will so that there isn't any "mobacracy", they feared a tyrannical majority would persecute the minority (which happens,they observed it in Pennsylvania) so they had the Supreme Court unelected and not touched by the popular conscience.

Source.
His own mouth? He's gone on and on about how families making more than $250K/ a year need to "pay a little more". He even mentioned it in the debates...did you watch?

He didn't say any particular bracket, he just said the rich.

Yah, competition is just a Liberal myth.
Wat?

You'll get it eventually.

No, you're being an idiot about this. I point out that his plan is/was incomplete, so there were large holes in his plan leaving of course strange anomalies for Obama to attack.
His plan didn't have holes. That's just what Obama wanted you to think...see how rediculous that sounds?

The difference is that what I said is grounded in reality and backed up by fact checkers, what you said was something Romney said and something fact checkers mercilessly attacked him over as it had no basis in reality.

No, the BLS says 7.9%, not 16.
No they don't

A quick google search says you're wrong.

Well no shit, some of those don't need work, so of course they're going to have a high unemployment rate.
So, fuck them, right?

.......Yah they're kind of teenagers who have parents who pay for their food, housing and all else, of course the unemployment rate is going to be high amongst those people they don't need a job.

businesses are holding out from expanding because they don't know how the healthcare law will effect them
EXACTLY!

No what I said was what I was arguing, what you were arguing is that small businesses are closing due to the healthcare law, which I point out they don't they're just not expanding, to which you then said nuh uh, to which I replied again and now you're concurring.

OH IT MUST BE BECAUSE OF THE HEALTHCARE LAW RIGHT!
Um, no

lolz. Gary Johnson and Ron Paul were elected as Republican candidates. The main difference between the two is that the libertarian party is more upfront with its insanity.
Hmm. Ron Paul wasn't even on my ballot and Gary Johnson was classified as the libertarian party...

Ron Paul is a Republican representative from Texas and Gary Johnson is a Republican governor from New Mexico. They both joined the Libertarian party to run for President.

Nice to know you think freedom is insanity though. Interesting.

Wow you do realize how full of shit you are right?


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 21:52:55 Reply

100% of newborns and the deceased are unemployed. Obama is clearly failing here.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 22:18:34 Reply

At 11/9/12 09:52 PM, Feoric wrote: 100% of newborns and the deceased are unemployed. Obama is clearly failing here.

He failed as much as your pathetic use of a straw man fallacy.


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 22:21:51 Reply

At 11/9/12 10:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
At 11/9/12 09:52 PM, Feoric wrote: 100% of newborns and the deceased are unemployed. Obama is clearly failing here.
He failed as much as your pathetic use of a straw man fallacy.

I guess that's why he was reelected.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to 4 more years! 2012-11-09 22:30:11 Reply

At 11/9/12 10:21 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 11/9/12 10:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
At 11/9/12 09:52 PM, Feoric wrote: 100% of newborns and the deceased are unemployed. Obama is clearly failing here.
He failed as much as your pathetic use of a straw man fallacy.
I guess that's why he was reelected.

The real failure here is your inability to comprehend that Bush JR, Obama, and Romney are all playing ball for the same team.


BBS Signature