PDA

View Full Version : Elections If Obama Wins, Damage Likely to Be Permanent


Pages : [1] 2

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 06:23 PM
So what if Obama is elected? After four years, Americans will realize they've been sold a bill of goods by the left-wing media, and vote him back out again. Then we can live happily ever after. Right?

Wrong. Four years is more than enough time to inflict permanent damage on this country, given the large majorities the moonbat messiah is likely to have in both houses of Congress. The Wall Street Journal warns that if Dems get BHO in the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we will enter "a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy."

Among the consequences:

Socialized medicine. This gargantuan entitlement would be extremely difficult to repeal, and would inevitably lead to low-quality, rationed healthcare in the short term, national bankruptcy in the long term.

Hostile business climate. Nancy Pelosi says the government has "harsh decisions" to make regarding assigning blame and doling out punishment for the financial panic. The ball and chain Sarbanes-Oxley put on American business will feel like a sweatband compared to the shackles coming next. The first victims will be the financial, energy, telecom, biotech, and pharmaceutical industries. Needless to say, this will not shorten the economic downturn. Fortunately for Democrats, the worse the economy, the more cover they have to inflict socialism, making it worst still. This vicious spiral will not stop until communist America finds itself rooting through Dumpsters for food.

Union supremacy. Unions are a cancer that have all but killed the American auto industry. Dems want to do away with secret ballot elections so that intimidation tactics can be used to make them vastly more powerful. The Orwellian "Employee Free Choice Act" — supported by Obama — entails forcing businesses to recognize a union even where the majority of workers don't want to unionize.

Taxes. Obviously an economic slowdown is not a good time to raise taxes. Yet Obama has made it clear he will jack taxes through the ceiling. Supposedly this will only affect "the rich." Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics knows that it will hurt us all by crippling the economy.

Ecolunacy. Cap and trade schemes based on the fictional global warming crisis would make a recession permanent by inflicting punitive taxation on all economically productive activity. I hope the polar bears appreciate it.

Voting rights. Election-day voter registration is already leading to chaos in Ohio. This would likely go national, as anything that facilitates voter fraud helps Democrats, whose appeal is to moral degenerates who don't feel they should have to earn anything, including election victories. Felons may get the right to vote nationwide — another big boon to Democrats, for obvious reasons.

Freedom of speech. Some new form of the "Fairness Doctrine" would be employed to shut up Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and anyone else who might use the airwaves to rally resistance against socialism. Next the Left would target the Internet, under the guise of "net neutrality." But don't worry, Keith Olbermann will still to be around to keep you informed.

Special interests. It will be Christmas every day for teachers unions and trial lawyers. There are limits to how much damage termites can do to a structure before it is no longer sound.

Terrorism. Look for O.J. Simpson–style civil courts for every last foreign terrorist who comes into custody. Hamas has its reasons for endorsing Obama.

As the WSJ concludes:

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

If the media gets its way next month, moonbattery may corrode America past the point of no return.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

WilliamTheIrish
10-17-2008, 06:25 PM
Not to mention all the egos that will crushed beyond repair.

Mecca
10-17-2008, 06:25 PM
So are we just going to get 4 years of whining posts from you or what, are you just warming up over the past week or so?

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 06:28 PM
So are we just going to get 4 years of whining posts from you or what, are you just warming up over the past week or so?

Mecca, who paid for your college?

Zebedee DuBois
10-17-2008, 06:28 PM
If there is one thing I've learned through the decades, its that this country is resilient.
We've survived through many types of presidencies, including the present one.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 06:30 PM
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.


Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

kcfanintitanhell
10-17-2008, 06:31 PM
Jeez, I feel as if I've entered a post-Middle Earth where orcs have learned how to use computers.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 06:32 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/obama_site.jpg

HolmeZz
10-17-2008, 06:33 PM
Republicans only have themselves to blame. You can't **** up the country for 8 years and then throw a fit when you get thrown out. If you want to stay in power, nominate someone who won't fuck up.

Mecca
10-17-2008, 06:38 PM
I know numerous people some Republicans that regard Bush as the worst President ever, and we've got conservatives crying that the world is going to end because they're guy is losing, what the hell do you expect? People to just keep blindly voting for the same party when the last guy was a disaster?

Earthling
10-17-2008, 06:41 PM
Jeez, I feel as if I've entered a post-Middle Earth where orcs have learned how to use computers.

Hehe ! All your gold are belong to me! :D

Over-Head
10-17-2008, 06:42 PM
I'll trade ya Harper for EITHER one of your two clowns:D

Taco John
10-17-2008, 06:45 PM
So what if Obama is elected? After four years, Americans will realize they've been sold a bill of goods by the left-wing media, and vote him back out again. Then we can live happily ever after. Right?

Wrong. Four years is more than enough time to inflict permanent damage on this country, given the large majorities the moonbat messiah is likely to have in both houses of Congress. The Wall Street Journal warns that if Dems get BHO in the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we will enter "a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy."

Among the consequences:

Socialized medicine. This gargantuan entitlement would be extremely difficult to repeal, and would inevitably lead to low-quality, rationed healthcare in the short term, national bankruptcy in the long term.

Hostile business climate. Nancy Pelosi says the government has "harsh decisions" to make regarding assigning blame and doling out punishment for the financial panic. The ball and chain Sarbanes-Oxley put on American business will feel like a sweatband compared to the shackles coming next. The first victims will be the financial, energy, telecom, biotech, and pharmaceutical industries. Needless to say, this will not shorten the economic downturn. Fortunately for Democrats, the worse the economy, the more cover they have to inflict socialism, making it worst still. This vicious spiral will not stop until communist America finds itself rooting through Dumpsters for food.

Union supremacy. Unions are a cancer that have all but killed the American auto industry. Dems want to do away with secret ballot elections so that intimidation tactics can be used to make them vastly more powerful. The Orwellian "Employee Free Choice Act" — supported by Obama — entails forcing businesses to recognize a union even where the majority of workers don't want to unionize.

Taxes. Obviously an economic slowdown is not a good time to raise taxes. Yet Obama has made it clear he will jack taxes through the ceiling. Supposedly this will only affect "the rich." Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics knows that it will hurt us all by crippling the economy.

Ecolunacy. Cap and trade schemes based on the fictional global warming crisis would make a recession permanent by inflicting punitive taxation on all economically productive activity. I hope the polar bears appreciate it.

Voting rights. Election-day voter registration is already leading to chaos in Ohio. This would likely go national, as anything that facilitates voter fraud helps Democrats, whose appeal is to moral degenerates who don't feel they should have to earn anything, including election victories. Felons may get the right to vote nationwide — another big boon to Democrats, for obvious reasons.

Freedom of speech. Some new form of the "Fairness Doctrine" would be employed to shut up Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and anyone else who might use the airwaves to rally resistance against socialism. Next the Left would target the Internet, under the guise of "net neutrality." But don't worry, Keith Olbermann will still to be around to keep you informed.

Special interests. It will be Christmas every day for teachers unions and trial lawyers. There are limits to how much damage termites can do to a structure before it is no longer sound.

Terrorism. Look for O.J. Simpson–style civil courts for every last foreign terrorist who comes into custody. Hamas has its reasons for endorsing Obama.

As the WSJ concludes:

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

If the media gets its way next month, moonbattery may corrode America past the point of no return.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html



Seriously... Did you vote for Bush?

the Talking Can
10-17-2008, 06:49 PM
it's like being present at the birth of stupidity....

RJ
10-17-2008, 06:55 PM
Off topic, but I dig the Ernest T. Bass avatar.

Bill Parcells
10-17-2008, 06:55 PM
Mecca, who paid for your college?

It was a student loan for ''special education''

HMc
10-17-2008, 07:03 PM
Socialized medicine. This gargantuan entitlement would be extremely difficult to repeal, and would inevitably lead to low-quality, rationed healthcare in the short term, national bankruptcy in the long term.



Please post some evidence to support this assertion. Socialised medicine certainly hasn't had that effect in Australia, and we've had it for 30 years.

In fact, I can't think of a single prosperous western democracy where universal health care has been anything but a success, over the short, medium and long terms.

Mecca
10-17-2008, 07:08 PM
Please post some evidence to support this assertion. Socialised medicine certainly hasn't had that effect in Australia, and we've had it for 30 years.

In fact, I can't think of a single prosperous western democracy where universal health care has been anything but a success, over the short, medium and long terms.

Shh, don't bring up facts.

bango
10-17-2008, 07:18 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/obama_site.jpg

You have stated in another thread that you are not a supporter of McCain. Why do you try to post so many negative thread and posts directed at his opponent then? Who are you supporting?

penchief
10-17-2008, 07:24 PM
If Obama wins the damage that Bush, Cheney, and the republican party have done to this country is going to be permanent?

Now that's funny.

banyon
10-17-2008, 07:26 PM
Did you mean the damage to your brain stem?

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 07:37 PM
You have stated in another thread that you are not a supporter of McCain. Why do you try to post so many negative thread and posts directed at his opponent then? Who are you supporting?

THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Ultra Peanut
10-17-2008, 07:50 PM
http://i36.tinypic.com/2hdta1j.jpg

Bill Parcells
10-17-2008, 07:53 PM
http://i36.tinypic.com/2hdta1j.jpg

I have to admit for a moon bat UP has made me laugh out loud a lot lately. should I be afraid? :redface:

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 07:55 PM
Please post some evidence to support this assertion. Socialised medicine certainly hasn't had that effect in Australia, and we've had it for 30 years.


With a population of...?

Friendo
10-17-2008, 08:25 PM
it's like being present at the birth of stupidity....

ROFL

just think of "Joe the Plumber" as a giant metaphor :thumb:

Mr. Laz
10-17-2008, 08:27 PM
holy shite ... the fact that someone would predict regret and failure after the abomination of the Bush administration is just beyond pathetic.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 08:32 PM
This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history.

Smed1065
10-17-2008, 08:34 PM
holy shite ... the fact that someone would predict regret and failure after the abomination of the Bush administration is just beyond pathetic.

That is what it is based on. IMO

I mean they would have to reverse this mojo and overcome that damage in 4 years when it even took them (surprised it was not 4) 8 years to create?

ROFL

If you cant win, cover your ass based on the facts the losers created.

J Diddy
10-17-2008, 08:34 PM
This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history.

because the right's been working so well

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 08:35 PM
because the right's been working so well

Not mutually exclusive.

:rolleyes:

J Diddy
10-17-2008, 08:37 PM
Not mutually exclusive.

:rolleyes:


I disagree. If something isn't working try something else. The opposite of what's failing is generally a good starting point.

Smed1065
10-17-2008, 08:38 PM
This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history.

I guess the right had a chance and must of fucked it up big time based on your post. So who would be to blame?

The old savy vets with a record or the new rookie player?

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 08:40 PM
I disagree. If something isn't working try something else. The opposite of what's failing is generally a good starting point.


A liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent combined with a Marxist executive isn't a good starting point.

***SPRAYER
10-17-2008, 08:42 PM
I guess the right had a chance and must of ****ed it up big time based on your post. So who would be to blame?



Bush f'd it up big time, but "the right" had alot of help from Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 08:46 PM
What I want to know is, if Obama knows where Osama lives, why doesn't he give the address to an American Bomber pilot ToDAY.

bango
10-17-2008, 08:46 PM
THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

I understand. How do you feel about The Other One? Everyone here can pretty much figure out how you feel about That One.

Mr. Laz
10-17-2008, 08:52 PM
What I want to know is, if Obama knows where Osama lives, why doesn't he give the address to an American Bomber pilot ToDAY.

you're slipping ... you forgot to slip Hussein in there

splatbass
10-17-2008, 09:11 PM
Four years is more than enough time to inflict permanent damage on this country

I got news for you, Bush already inflicted permanent damage.

When things get better under Obama will you admit you were wrong?

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 09:13 PM
you're slipping ... you forgot to slip Hussein in there

Find a single time I've posted that.

You're slipping on your own political douchebaggary.

Ultra Peanut
10-17-2008, 09:25 PM
you're slipping ... you forgot to slip Hussein in thereAnd Hoperah, don't forget that! I mean, it's caught on so well!

Messier
10-17-2008, 09:31 PM
What I want to know is, if Obama knows where Osama lives, why doesn't he give the address to an American Bomber pilot ToDAY.

Same with McCain. He says he knows how to get Osama. Well, if that's the case why is he holding out on everyone. Is the relaying of this information contingent on him becoming president?

jettio
10-17-2008, 09:34 PM
Funny, I predicted in 2004 that the consequence of a B*sh victory would be four more years of continued failure that would lay the groundwork for a democratic president and majority that would stay in power for a generation.

B*sh's continued failures was predictable, but Obama and Harold Dean's outstanding strategy and organizing was not exactly foreseeable. Obama and Dean have pretty much established the democratic party as the cool place to be for young people who grew up in a diverse society.

GOP is a shell with two orthodoxies that are incompatible and the GOP does not have ethnic diversity that reflects the American demographics.

Obama has loyal volunteers who will keep working to make sure he succeeds and who will help to grow the party in all 50 states.

B*sh's second term was the swan song of the conservative movement fueled by economic extremists who depended on the exploitation of the christian coalition and the rural whites by playing on their emotions and fears.

It is a whole different story from here on out. The die is cast.

Obama is practical and smart and hires competent people. He will do as good a job as possible with what he inherits.

The GOP will not come back until it comes up with a generation that sells ideas instead of demagoguery. The GOP is dead unless they start to welcome people of different ethnic backgrounds and that will not happen until most of the elder GOP leaders go to the retirement village.

It ought to be real interesting, the GOP and the conservative movement still has their think tanks and their money, but they will have nobody showing up to vote for them.

Iowanian
10-17-2008, 09:40 PM
And Hoperah, don't forget that! I mean, it's caught on so well!


It doesn't sound like I can count on the never-been-employed tranny vote. I'll have to get my people to find me some catch phrases to work on winning over that demographic.

Friendo
10-17-2008, 09:41 PM
Funny, I predicted in 2004 that the consequence of a B*sh victory would be four more years of continued failure that would lay the groundwork for a democratic president and majority that would stay in power for a generation.

B*sh's continued failures was predictable, but Obama and Harold Dean's outstanding strategy and organizing was not exactly foreseeable. Obama and Dean have pretty much established the democratic party as the cool place to be for young people who grew up in a diverse society.

GOP is a shell with two orthodoxies that are incompatible and the GOP does not have ethnic diversity that reflects the American demographics.

Obama has loyal volunteers who will keep working to make sure he succeeds and who will help to grow the party in all 50 states.

B*sh's second term was the swan song of the conservative movement fueled by economic extremists who depended on the exploitation of the christian coalition and the rural whites by playing on their emotions and fears.

It is a whole different story from here on out. The die is cast.

Obama is practical and smart and hires competent people. He will do as good a job as possible with what he inherits.

The GOP will not come back until it comes up with a generation that sells ideas instead of demagoguery. The GOP is dead unless they start to welcome people of different ethnic backgrounds and that will not happen until most of the elder GOP leaders go to the retirement village.

It ought to be real interesting, the GOP and the conservative movement still has their think tanks and their money, but they will have nobody showing up to vote for them.

drill, baby, drill! :thumb:

Logical
10-17-2008, 09:41 PM
Socialized medicine. This gargantuan entitlement would be extremely difficult to repeal, and would inevitably lead to low-quality, rationed healthcare in the short term, national bankruptcy in the long term.

Hate to burst your bubble, but ever since the advent of HMOs we have had rationed healthcare.

Ultra Peanut
10-17-2008, 09:56 PM
It doesn't sound like I can count on the never-been-employed tranny vote. I'll have to get my people to find me some catch phrases to work on winning over that demographic.Ah, yes. The tranny card. That's surely the best sign that the person I'm talking to is on strong ground.

bango
10-17-2008, 09:59 PM
Funny, I predicted in 2004 that the consequence of a B*sh victory would be four more years of continued failure that would lay the groundwork for a democratic president and majority that would stay in power for a generation.

B*sh's continued failures was predictable, but Obama and Harold Dean's outstanding strategy and organizing was not exactly foreseeable. Obama and Dean have pretty much established the democratic party as the cool place to be for young people who grew up in a diverse society.

GOP is a shell with two orthodoxies that are incompatible and the GOP does not have ethnic diversity that reflects the American demographics.

Obama has loyal volunteers who will keep working to make sure he succeeds and who will help to grow the party in all 50 states.

B*sh's second term was the swan song of the conservative movement fueled by economic extremists who depended on the exploitation of the christian coalition and the rural whites by playing on their emotions and fears.

It is a whole different story from here on out. The die is cast.

Obama is practical and smart and hires competent people. He will do as good a job as possible with what he inherits.

The GOP will not come back until it comes up with a generation that sells ideas instead of demagoguery. The GOP is dead unless they start to welcome people of different ethnic backgrounds and that will not happen until most of the elder GOP leaders go to the retirement village.

It ought to be real interesting, the GOP and the conservative movement still has their think tanks and their money, but they will have nobody showing up to vote for them.

Very well put and right on the money.

Guru
10-17-2008, 10:06 PM
You know SHTSPRAYER, whoever wins, all you can do is just hope the voters were right. It is all there really is. I won't be voting for Obama but if he is elected, I will hope he can make some positive changes. There is no point in hating him as there is nothing that can be done about it for 4 years anyway. I'll support whomever wins the position once it is all said and done.

BWillie
10-17-2008, 10:13 PM
The president is kind of like a MLB manager. Everybody thinks they have all this control and power of their team, but in reality, they are more or less just a figurehead. You can't blame Bush for all the economic problems in this country. Basically the number one issue the president can effect is foreign policy, and certain Bush has failed at that. But even if there was a democrat in office the last eight years our economy would be very similar. Economic woes are cyclical. They happen. Symptoms can show up 10-15 years later.

Certainly congress, the house, the American people, and the president should have blame, but why does everybody solely blame the president for all the woes on this country beyond the war in Iraq is beyond me. The Clinton administration pushed to get alot of people in housing that shouldn't of been in housing in the first place and really couldn't afford it. Now they have their adjustable rate mortgages shoot through the roof at 25% and just leave the keys in the mailbox and leave without paying. At the same time you have republicans wanting a less hands off approach and failed to want to provide regulation to fix some of these problems. The problem isn't republicans and democrats, it's partisan politics and the pull of power from each direction. Nobody is in it for the greater good of the USA, but more or less to better their own party or political career.

banyon
10-17-2008, 10:15 PM
The president is kind of like a MLB manager. Everybody thinks they have all this control and power of their team, but in reality, they are more or less just a figurehead. You can't blame Bush for all the economic problems in this country. Basically the number one issue the president can effect is foreign policy, and certain Bush has failed at that. But even if there was a democrat in office the last eight years our economy would be very similar. Economic woes are cyclical. They happen. Symptoms can show up 10-15 years later.

Certainly congress, the house, the American people, and the president should have blame, but why does everybody solely blame the president for all the woes on this country beyond the war in Iraq is beyond me. The Clinton administration pushed to get alot of people in housing that shouldn't of been in housing in the first place and really couldn't afford it. Now they have their adjustable rate mortgages shoot through the roof at 25% and just leave the keys in the mailbox and leave without paying. At the same time you have republicans wanting a less hands off approach and failed to want to provide regulation to fix some of these problems. The problem isn't republicans and democrats, it's partisan politics and the pull of power from each direction. Nobody is in it for the greater good of the USA, but more or less to better their own party or political career.

Can we blame them for trading Sammy Sosa?

VAChief
10-17-2008, 10:20 PM
You know SHTSPRAYER, whoever wins, all you can do is just hope the voters were right. It is all there really is. I won't be voting for Obama but if he is elected, I will hope he can make some positive changes. There is no point in hating him as there is nothing that can be done about it for 4 years anyway. I'll support whomever wins the position once it is all said and done.

I actually felt similarly on Bush in 2000. I had doubts going into the election, I remember telling my dad the biggest thing that bothered me about him was that I had this impression that he wanted to "play" President, but I wasn't sure he really knew what the job would really entail.

After 9/11 I like most Americans came together and supported him. Now he went on to f**k things up pretty bad, but I certainly didn't hope it would happen. That's what I don't understand with some of these posts.

HMc
10-17-2008, 10:23 PM
With a population of...?

~ 21 million - but that also means they've got less tax revenue to work with.

Australian govt Revenue per capita 2008-2009 ($US) 180B/21450000 = $8400

US Govt Revenue per capita 2009 ($US) 2700B/305437000 = $8840

Keep spreading the FUD, because there's certainly no evidence that supports your irrational viewpoints and claims.

kcpasco
10-17-2008, 11:51 PM
Union supremacy. Unions are a cancer that have all but killed the American auto industry. Dems want to do away with secret ballot elections so that intimidation tactics can be used to make them vastly more powerful. The Orwellian "Employee Free Choice Act" — supported by Obama — entails forcing businesses to recognize a union even where the majority of workers don't want to unionize.


Unions are the number 1 reason I vote democrat.

But lets go ahead and bust all of them so our wages and working conditions will be on par with Mexico.

WOOT!!!!!!

ROYC75
10-18-2008, 01:36 AM
Unions are the number 1 reason I vote democrat.

But lets go ahead and bust all of them so our wages and working conditions will be on par with Mexico.

WOOT!!!!!!

The high prices of union labor and benefits make it hard for the company to compete with over seas prices.

It's good for the people here, but to make unions work, we need to not let products made by that company allowed for incoming trade. There is no way to compete in the cost.

Infidel Goat
10-18-2008, 06:24 AM
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.


I think you intentionally underestimate the Blue Dogs...

There are plenty of recently elected conservative democrats who won't go tilting at all of Obama's windmills because they'll want to be re-elected in two years.

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 06:45 AM
I but I certainly didn't hope it would happen. That's what I don't understand with some of these posts.

I don't hope he f*cks things up, I just have zero faith in him.

Pelosi, Reid, Barney, B.O....

unfettered. The door to the candy store will be wide open.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 07:25 AM
Seriously... Did you vote for Bush?

I can understand why the libs aren't concerned about voting in the 3rd installment of the NewDeal/GreatSociety/Obamunism, but your apparent pleasure at the prospect of seeing the far left take the type of total control over our system that GWB never had betrays your lack of libertarian conviction, IMO.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 07:38 AM
holy shite ... the fact that someone would predict regret and failure after the abomination of the Bush administration is just beyond pathetic.

What systemic changes did Bush make that can't easily be undone besides his collaborations with leftwing democrats (prescription drug entitlement, creation of DHS, etc.)? His tax cuts and his GWoT are easily reversed.

The credit crisis cannot be laid at the feet of this administration. They certainly deserve a share of the blame, but the democrats did nothing to make us believe that they would have prevented it if they'd have had the power. Republicans were the ones over the last few years sounding the (admittedly faint) alarm, not democrats.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 07:51 AM
~ 21 million - but that also means they've got less tax revenue to work with.

Australian govt Revenue per capita 2008-2009 ($US) 180B/21450000 = $8400

US Govt Revenue per capita 2009 ($US) 2700B/305437000 = $8840

Keep spreading the FUD, because there's certainly no evidence that supports your irrational viewpoints and claims.

Why is it that Australia has had to import so many foreign general practice doctors? Are Australians just not as good as foreigners at the practice of medicine or is there a different reason so many of your best and brightest decided to go into other professions?

Do you get many Americans coming down under for cutting edge health treatments?

J Diddy
10-18-2008, 07:55 AM
Why is it that Australia has had to import so many foreign general practice doctors? Are Australians just not as good as foreigners at the practice of medicine or is there a different reason so many of your best and brightest decided to go into other professions?

Do you get many Americans coming down under for cutting edge health treatments?


Australians don't need doctors they slap some mud on it.

whoman69
10-18-2008, 07:56 AM
I had to stop reading this thread on page one. I was afraid the stupidity was contageous. Common right wing tactic, spread fear.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 07:59 AM
Australians don't need doctors they slap some mud on it.

LMAO

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 08:04 AM
I had to stop reading this thread on page one. I was afraid the stupidity was contageous. Common right wing tactic, spread fear.

Throughout his campaign, B.O. and his thugs have attacked people for exercising their first amendment rights. He has threatened people by unleashing the FBI and secret service on people for merely challenging his views. He has made public the tax status of a dissenter.

He will attempt to shut down conservative views expressed on our airwaves.

His record shows he is going to attempt to revise our 2nd amendment rights.

Bernanke and Paulson are in the process of centralizing our economy in preparation for B.O.'s authority.

I am not "spreading fear" just stating facts, and those facts sure are scary.

penchief
10-18-2008, 08:06 AM
Throughout his campaign, B.O. and his thugs have attacked people for exercising their first amendment rights. He has threatened people by unleashing the FBI and secret service on people for merely challenging his views. He has made public the tax status of a dissenter.

He will attempt to shut down conservative views expressed on our airwaves.

His record shows he is going to attempt to revise our 2nd amendment rights.

Bernanke and Paulson are in the process of centralizing our economy in preparation for B.O.'s authority.

I am not "spreading fear" just stating facts, and those facts sure are scary.

You are so full of it that it's not even funny.

penchief
10-18-2008, 08:19 AM
After 9/11 I like most Americans came together and supported him. Now he went on to f**k things up pretty bad, but I certainly didn't hope it would happen. That's what I don't understand with some of these posts.

Exactly. The reason we were bitching was because we were bothered by what was happening to the country. Unfortunately, those who wanted to bury their heads in the sand opted for calling us unpatriotic traitors instead of trying to hold their heroes accountable for their corruption and incompetence.

penchief
10-18-2008, 08:27 AM
I don't hope he f*cks things up, I just have zero faith in him.

Pelosi, Reid, Barney, B.O....

unfettered. The door to the candy store will be wide open.

There's nothing ****ing left! It's already been raided!

The business crooks and war profiteers within your precious republican establishment have already cleaned us out. Good God, what planet have you been living on for the last eight years? Do you really want to talk about unfettered access and lack of accountability after the feeding frenzy that has occurred under Bush's watch?

Shitslinger, your partisan slip is showing big time and it's not pretty.

Friendo
10-18-2008, 08:28 AM
Throughout his campaign, B.O. and his thugs have attacked people for exercising their first amendment rights. He has threatened people by unleashing the FBI and secret service on people for merely challenging his views. He has made public the tax status of a dissenter.

He will attempt to shut down conservative views expressed on our airwaves.

His record shows he is going to attempt to revise our 2nd amendment rights.

Bernanke and Paulson are in the process of centralizing our economy in preparation for B.O.'s authority.

I am not "spreading fear" just stating facts, and those facts sure are scary.

bark much?

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 08:38 AM
.



You two moonbats must obviously agree with me. You did nothing by way of argument.

penchief
10-18-2008, 08:45 AM
You two moonbats must obviously agree with me. You did nothing by way of argument.

You must be looking into a mirror and seeing somebody else.

dirk digler
10-18-2008, 08:47 AM
I remember the last Dem that had to come in and clean up after a Bush and he did pretty good.

You will be alright shtsprayer we lived through the past 4 years of probably the worst POTUS in history I doubt Obama could be that bad.

penchief
10-18-2008, 08:51 AM
I remember the last Dem that had to come in and clean up after a Bush and he did pretty good.

You will be alright shtsprayer we lived through the past 4 years of probably the worst POTUS in history I doubt Obama could be that bad.

Democrats always have to clean up after republican messes. My grandmother told me that when I was a young lad and she hasn't been proven wrong yet.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 08:58 AM
Democrats always have to clean up after republican messes. My grandmother told me that when I was a young lad and she hasn't been proven wrong yet.

Your grandmother would have done you more good if she'd have warned you about sniffing glue.

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 09:33 AM
This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history.

If you're going to cut and paste Pat Buchanan, at least give the man credit. :rolleyes:

As Americans render what Catholics call temporal judgment on George Bush, are they aware of the radical course correction they are about to make?

This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history. Consider.

As of today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, anticipates gains of 15-30 seats. Sen. Harry Reid, whose partisanship grates even on many in his own party, may see his caucus expand to a filibuster-proof majority where he can ignore Republican dissent.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/the_coming_backlash.html

banyon
10-18-2008, 09:47 AM
Why is it that Australia has had to import so many foreign general practice doctors? Are Australians just not as good as foreigners at the practice of medicine or is there a different reason so many of your best and brightest decided to go into other professions?

Do you get many Americans coming down under for cutting edge health treatments?

We import a lot of doctors too. Why is that?

patteeu
10-18-2008, 10:02 AM
We import a lot of doctors too. Why is that?

Over 1/3 of Australia's general practitioners are imported from overseas. We don't have a shortage anywhere near that.

banyon
10-18-2008, 10:05 AM
Over 1/3 of Australia's general practitioners are imported from overseas. We don't have a shortage anywhere near that.

I guess I think this is a pretty irrelevant measure to look at. Cuba exports more doctors than anyone else, does that mean that their system is the best?

Brock
10-18-2008, 10:06 AM
We import a lot of doctors too. Why is that?

Probably because the immigrant doctors will work for Medicare wages.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 10:14 AM
I guess I think this is a pretty irrelevant measure to look at. Cuba exports more doctors than anyone else, does that mean that their system is the best?

What it indicates is that being a doctor is less desirable than it used to be in Australia so the cream of the crop are turning to different fields where their talents will be adequately rewarded.

Our government-dominated education system is pathetic. Some argue that increasing teacher salaries would improve the situation by attracting a higher caliber educator on average. But with healthcare we're supposed to head in the opposite direction? No thanks.

banyon
10-18-2008, 10:18 AM
Probably because the immigrant doctors will work for Medicare wages.

Medicare has doctors on staff now?

banyon
10-18-2008, 10:27 AM
What it indicates is that being a doctor is less desirable than it used to be in Australia so the cream of the crop are turning to different fields where their talents will be adequately rewarded.

Our government-dominated education system is pathetic. Some argue that increasing teacher salaries would improve the situation by attracting a higher caliber educator on average. But with healthcare we're supposed to head in the opposite direction? No thanks.

You forgot Cuba (Poland).

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 10:39 AM
Why don't you O-bots just admit that everything I say is true, and that you are looking forward to it.

Or are you waiting until after the election to stop lying to people?

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 10:44 AM
Why don't you O-bots just admit that everything I say is true, and that you are looking forward to it.

You didn't say it. Pat Buchanan did. :Poke: :p

patteeu
10-18-2008, 10:45 AM
You forgot Cuba (Poland).

All your Cuba factoid means is that Cubans are willing to work for low wages. Do you think it would be a good trend for Cuban medicine if they had to start importing their doctors from Haiti?

Brock
10-18-2008, 10:46 AM
Medicare has doctors on staff now?

Fewer and fewer doctors take medicare patients. Doctors from third world countries come here and make more money than they would anywhere else and gladly take medicare patients. I suspect you understood the point.

banyon
10-18-2008, 10:48 AM
Fewer and fewer doctors take medicare patients. Doctors from third world countries come here and make more money than they would anywhere else and gladly take medicare patients. I suspect you understood the point.

I think what you say is probably accurate. Given the alternative of no treatment at all, though, it seems like a good option to me.

MaxFects
10-18-2008, 11:12 AM
Republicans only have themselves to blame. You can't **** up the country for 8 years and then throw a fit when you get thrown out. If you want to stay in power, nominate someone who won't **** up.

Haha, so true

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 11:35 AM
I think you intentionally underestimate the Blue Dogs...

There are plenty of recently elected conservative democrats who won't go tilting at all of Obama's windmills because they'll want to be re-elected in two years.


That's reassuring, but as long as Harry, Nancy and Barney are still there I have no faith that this economy will get better. It will only get worse, and then some.

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 11:36 AM
You didn't say it. Pat Buchanan did. :Poke: :p

Yes, Pat was able to articulate the point better than me. (If I had given him credit you would have only commented on Pat Buchanan, not what he said).

Uncle_Ted
10-18-2008, 11:40 AM
The original article forgot to mention Obama's radical pro-choice stance -- if elected he and the Dems will force all white women to abort their fetuses so they can ship their stem cells to North Korea in an effort to save Kim Jong Il.

Mr. Laz
10-18-2008, 11:41 AM
so is all the stuff Bush fucked up permanent?


if not then why would any Obama mistakes be permanent?

Calcountry
10-18-2008, 11:42 AM
I know numerous people some Republicans that regard Bush as the worst President ever, and we've got conservatives crying that the world is going to end because they're guy is losing, what the hell do you expect? People to just keep blindly voting for the same party when the last guy was a disaster?lmao.

Hey, that Chevy was a piece of shit, so why don't you buy a Ford this time?

Calcountry
10-18-2008, 11:43 AM
so is all the stuff Bush ****ed up permanent?


if not then why would any Obama mistakes be permanent?Can't wait to watch all you lefties try to hold Obama's jock for him.

Calcountry
10-18-2008, 11:46 AM
All your Cuba factoid means is that Cubans are willing to work for low wages. Do you think it would be a good trend for Cuban medicine if they had to start importing their doctors from Haiti?Why work and pay taxes, when the suckers that do will just have to spread it around to the bums.

splatbass
10-18-2008, 11:55 AM
You are so full of it that it's not even funny.

That is why he calls himself SHTSPRAYER.

RJ
10-18-2008, 12:06 PM
Beauty is in the eye, etc.

My fear is that McCain will win and that rather than see our country improve - especially the economy - it will either stay like it is or get worse. And then *shudder* I fear that McCain will die or become disabled and Palin will be left in charge. That, to me, is the absolute worst case scenario we are faced with. Palin in charge and a cabinet selected by the same guy who picked her running the show.

No matter who wins, though, nothing is permanent. Nothing is ever permanent.

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 01:03 PM
Yes, Pat was able to articulate the point better than me. (If I had given him credit you would have only commented on Pat Buchanan, not what he said).

That's one way to spin plagiarism, I suppose. :rolleyes:

Intellectually dishonest, but I suppose that's an improvement from intellectual vacuousness.

Perhaps some day you'll actually be able to express concepts in your own words like D2112. Perhaps. ;)

Sully
10-18-2008, 01:34 PM
ROFL

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 03:02 PM
That's one way to spin plagiarism, I suppose. :rolleyes:




Plagiarism? I didn't know I was going to be graded on this. :rolleyes:

Speaking of plagiarism, there is a rumor going around that William Ayers ghost wrote Dreams of my father.

Not that anyone actually read that POS book.

ROFL

banyon
10-18-2008, 03:05 PM
Plagiarism? I didn't know I was going to be graded on this. :rolleyes:

Speaking of plagiarism, there is a rumor going around that William Ayers ghost wrote Dreams of my father.

Not that anyone actually read that POS book.

ROFL

Well, hurry up and spread it as quickly as possible! What are you waiting for?

Taco John
10-18-2008, 03:18 PM
Speaking of plagiarism, there is a rumor going around that William Ayers ghost wrote Dreams of my father.


The intellectual dishonesty of the Republican party is a chief reason why they are going to lose this election. This sentance is a perfect example. It's one thing to make a hollow allegation with absolutely no proof that William Ayers wrote Barack Obama's book. But not only does this wretch do this, but he tries to associate it with plagerism, as though having a ghost writer somehow qualifies.

Republicans are going to have to make a return to honesty and integrity to ever regain power in this country.

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 03:35 PM
Plagiarism? I didn't know I was going to be graded on this. :rolleyes:

Speaking of plagiarism, there is a rumor going around that William Ayers ghost wrote Dreams of my father.

Not that anyone actually read that POS book.

ROFL

Graded? Not at all. That said, I'm not surprised you don't realize plagiarism isn't limited to academia.

It's nice to know you are comfortable with your level of ignorance. If it were me, I'd be inclined to try to improve myself to the point where I could express myself in my own words, instead of relying upon someone else's.

If you're comfortable being the verbal/political equivalent of the school-age loser who has to make a comp tape to tell some girl "how you really feel about her", it's no skin off my nose. ROFL

The intellectual dishonesty of the Republican party is a chief reason why they are going to lose this election. This sentance is a perfect example. It's one thing to make a hollow allegation with absolutely no proof that William Ayers wrote Barack Obama's book. But not only does this wretch do this, but he tries to associate it with plagerism, as though having a ghost writer somehow qualifies.

Republicans are going to have to make a return to honesty and integrity to ever regain power in this country.

Well said.

IMO, it's an unfortunate side-effect of certain party mouthpieces treating intellectuals with disdain.

Mr. Laz
10-18-2008, 03:37 PM
Can't wait to watch all you lefties try to hold Obama's jock for him.
can't be as bad as all you righties tossing Dubya's salad for 8 years.

splatbass
10-18-2008, 03:38 PM
Speaking of plagiarism, there is a rumor going around that William Ayers ghost wrote Dreams of my father.

Not that anyone actually read that POS book.

ROFL

800,000 people read that book, and most that I know thought it was an excellent book. You just make yourself look stupid to call a book a POS when you haven't even read it.

Sully
10-18-2008, 03:39 PM
If you're comfortable being the verbal equivalent of the school-age loser who makes a comp tape to tell some girl "how you really feel about her", it's no skin off my nose. ROFL


What if it's a really good comp tape?
I mean, I had some Journey, REO, a little "Total Eclipse..." action...

Taco John
10-18-2008, 03:40 PM
can't be as bad as all you righties tossing Dubya's salad for 8 years.


The secret is grape or strawberry jam. It makes them think they're eating a sandwhich.

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 03:42 PM
What if it's a really good comp tape?
I mean, I had some Journey, REO, a little "Total Eclipse..." action...

Heh.

If it works for you, it's fine by me. I just think it's a little sad when you have to rely on that sort of thing to make yourself understood in other aspects of life. :shrug:

Granted, we all know shts prayer is more than a little sad. ;)

DTLB58
10-18-2008, 03:44 PM
And what Bush and company has done to our national debt and economy is???

Good grief :shake:

Mr. Laz
10-18-2008, 03:45 PM
The secret is grape or strawberry jam. It makes them think they're eating a sandwhich.

i still haven't heard anyone explain why one president's "damage" will be permanent compared to any other.

Halfcan
10-18-2008, 03:46 PM
If we can live through 12 years of lame Bush economics (Senior and GW) we should do well with a Stud like Obama in there.

Sully
10-18-2008, 03:47 PM
Heh.

If it works for you, it's fine by me. I just think it's a little sad when you have to rely on that sort of thing to make yourself understood in other aspects of life. :shrug:

Granted, we all know shts prayer is more than a little sad. ;)

ROFL.

I'd like to express my opinion with this video.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ervfiw-SsTY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ervfiw-SsTY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Adept Havelock
10-18-2008, 03:54 PM
:LOL:

shts prayer is the Baron Christian de Neuvillette of DC political discourse.

|Zach|
10-18-2008, 04:02 PM
<object width="601" height="339"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /> <param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1891426&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=0&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=01AA EA&amp;fullscreen=1" /> <embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1891426&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=0&amp;show_byline=0&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=01AA EA&amp;fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="601" height="339"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://vimeo.com/1891426?pg=embed&amp;sec=1891426">Obama '08 - Vote For Hope</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/mcyogi?pg=embed&amp;sec=1891426">MC Yogi</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com?pg=embed&amp;sec=1891426">Vimeo</a>.

Baby Lee
10-18-2008, 04:05 PM
i still haven't heard anyone explain why one president's "damage" will be permanent compared to any other.

The entitlements of FDR are still with us and will probably be forever.

Mr. Laz
10-18-2008, 04:10 PM
The entitlements of FDR are still with us and will probably be forever.
still not an answer


Bush mistakes = temporary?
Obama mistakes = permanent?


some would say that Bush's foreign policy decisions are gonna haunt us for a long,long time.

penchief
10-18-2008, 04:11 PM
The entitlements of FDR are still with us and will probably be forever.

Apparently, as a society we didn't think that all of FDRs entitlement programs were so horrible. Otherwise, we would have gotten rid of all of them. Social Security and Medicare make decent sense compared to the alternative, which we are on the cusp of realizing again if we continue down the path the corporate controlled republican establishment wants to keep us on.

Baby Lee
10-18-2008, 04:17 PM
still not an answer


Bush mistakes = temporary?
Obama mistakes = permanent?


some would say that Bush's foreign policy decisions are gonna haunt us for a long,long time.

Because once you tell people the government's gonna give them something, it's a thousand times the sell to tell them it's better is they get it themselves again, no matter how much it's actually hurting us, or our innovation, or our drive, or our self-esteem, to have it handed to us. It's kinda nice to just sit around and get it.

noa
10-18-2008, 04:25 PM
Because once you tell people the government's gonna give them something, it's a thousand times the sell to tell them it's better is they get it themselves again, no matter how much it's actually hurting us, or our innovation, or our drive, or our self-esteem, to have it handed to us. It's kinda nice to just sit around and get it.

That's why welfare reform was such an utter failure...oh wait.

I agree with your overall point, but not that damage is necessarily permanent, which is what the thread starter alleges.

splatbass
10-18-2008, 04:28 PM
Because once you tell people the government's gonna give them something, it's a thousand times the sell to tell them it's better is they get it themselves again, no matter how much it's actually hurting us, or our innovation, or our drive, or our self-esteem, to have it handed to us. It's kinda nice to just sit around and get it.

Social Security doesn't hand anything to anyone. You pay into it your entire working life, then collect when you retire. People that don't pay into it don't collect it.

Baby Lee
10-18-2008, 04:32 PM
That's why welfare reform was such an utter failure...oh wait.

It was a clear need, crystal, and it took a leviathan effort from the freshman republicans, who were the symbol of the sea change that scared Clinton back to center, to even get a watered down effort, and people are still bemoaning how callous and racist it supposedly was. When in real life, the ease of welfare was hurting minorities, by breaking up their families and consigning them to a dependent class, more than asking them to invest in themselves ever has. I still recall an article from around the time making the argument that welfare was good policy because it was cheaper than making recipients productive citizens, and recipients were sated and probably wouldn't make much noise.

penchief
10-18-2008, 04:34 PM
Because once you tell people the government's gonna give them something, it's a thousand times the sell to tell them it's better is they get it themselves again, no matter how much it's actually hurting us, or our innovation, or our drive, or our self-esteem, to have it handed to us. It's kinda nice to just sit around and get it.

It didn't hurt us in the fifties, sixties, and early seventies. Americans were hard-working, ingenious, and financially responsible. Shit started falling apart when the powerful and monied elite decided to dismantle the system by using it's sway to corrupt government, manipulate markets, and influence world events.

The advent of the military industrial complex, the corporate culture, and popular culture (a product of the corporate culture) has had more to do with the destruction of old-fashioned American values such as the work ethic than entitlement programs ever did.

People were happy that FDR put them back to work. They didn't want a handout. And today, with corporations depressing wages and shipping job overseas, renegging on pensions, and eliminating health benefits, the hope of improving one's lot in life through education, hard work, and fiscal responsibility has been taken away. The incentive is gone because the American dream has been destroyed by the selfish interests of those who have been given total sway over the mechanisms of our economic system.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 05:05 PM
No matter who wins, though, nothing is permanent. Nothing is ever permanent.

Obviously that's literally true, but the spirit of the OP article uses the word in a somewhat less literal way. For example, it's the difference between the Bush tax cuts (sunset clause means Congress has to act to continue them) versus the Reagan tax cuts (no sunset clause so Congress has to act to reverse them). Obviously neither is irreversible, but the mechanism for doing so is dramatically different.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 05:14 PM
The intellectual dishonesty of the Republican party is a chief reason why they are going to lose this election. This sentance is a perfect example. It's one thing to make a hollow allegation with absolutely no proof that William Ayers wrote Barack Obama's book. But not only does this wretch do this, but he tries to associate it with plagerism, as though having a ghost writer somehow qualifies.

Republicans are going to have to make a return to honesty and integrity to ever regain power in this country.

Having someone write a book for you and passing it off as your own is the same kind of intellectual dishonesty as plagerism. No more, no less. :p

It's probably impossible to prove the allegation, but it isn't baseless. People can read the argument (http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/evidence_mounts.htm) themselves and draw their own conclusions.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 05:25 PM
Social Security doesn't hand anything to anyone. You pay into it your entire working life, then collect when you retire. People that don't pay into it don't collect it.

Social security is a transfer of wealth, it's just not as much of a transfer as a pure welfare program. People with low incomes get a better return on their contributions than people with higher incomes.

RJ
10-18-2008, 05:26 PM
Having someone write a book for you and passing it off as your own is the same kind of intellectual dishonesty as plagerism. No more, no less. :p

It's probably impossible to prove the allegation, but it isn't baseless. People can read the argument (http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/evidence_mounts.htm) themselves and draw their own conclusions.


Here's a wild guess.

Obama supporters who read the argument for themselves will conclude that it's a bunch of BS.

Obama haters who read the argument for themselves will conclude that it is incontrovertible proof that Obama is, along with being a terrorist, a lying piece of shit plagarist.

But I'm just guessing.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 05:30 PM
Here's a wild guess.

Obama supporters who read the argument for themselves will conclude that it's a bunch of BS.

Obama haters who read the argument for themselves will conclude that it is incontrovertible proof that Obama is, along with being a terrorist, a lying piece of shit plagarist.

But I'm just guessing.

That's a pretty good guess.

RJ
10-18-2008, 05:33 PM
That's a pretty good guess.


I used to be a sideshow fortune teller.

Calcountry
10-18-2008, 06:32 PM
The intellectual dishonesty of the Republican party is a chief reason why they are going to lose this election. This sentance is a perfect example. It's one thing to make a hollow allegation with absolutely no proof that William Ayers wrote Barack Obama's book. But not only does this wretch do this, but he tries to associate it with plagerism, as though having a ghost writer somehow qualifies.

Republicans are going to have to make a return to honesty and integrity to ever regain power in this country.Are you trying to imply, that a party has to be honest and full of integrity to gain power in this country? Exhibit A: The Democrat Party. ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL They are as virtuous as Monica Lewinskis dress is clean.

Calcountry
10-18-2008, 06:34 PM
i still haven't heard anyone explain why one president's "damage" will be permanent compared to any other.Bush's damage.

Calcountry
10-18-2008, 06:36 PM
still not an answer


Bush mistakes = temporary?
Obama mistakes = permanent?


some would say that Bush's foreign policy decisions are gonna haunt us for a long,long time.Yes, Bush phuqed us up permanently, we will never recover. Obama, on the other hand, offers us hope, and change.

I can't wait.

Calcountry
10-18-2008, 06:37 PM
Because once you tell people the government's gonna give them something, it's a thousand times the sell to tell them it's better is they get it themselves again, no matter how much it's actually hurting us, or our innovation, or our drive, or our self-esteem, to have it handed to us. It's kinda nice to just sit around and get it.The marginal propensity to work will suffer a nosedive under Obama.

Logical
10-18-2008, 06:44 PM
Having someone write a book for you and passing it off as your own is the same kind of intellectual dishonesty as plagerism. No more, no less. :p

It's probably impossible to prove the allegation, but it isn't baseless. People can read the argument (http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/evidence_mounts.htm) themselves and draw their own conclusions.If you understand it is pretty much impossible to prove, why spread a baseless rumor?

patteeu
10-18-2008, 07:09 PM
If you understand it is pretty much impossible to prove, why spread a baseless rumor?

Because I understand that it's not baseless.

Beyond that, there are a nearly infinite number of things that we talk about here that are impossible to prove.

Logical
10-18-2008, 07:10 PM
Because I understand that it's not baseless.

Beyond that, there are a nearly infinite number of things that we talk about here that are impossible to prove.I suppose that is a reasonable theory, I doubt you would feel the same way if it was related to Palin.

patteeu
10-18-2008, 07:11 PM
I suppose that is a reasonable theory, I doubt you would feel the same way if it was related to Palin.

Did she claim to write a book?

Mr. Flopnuts
10-18-2008, 07:15 PM
So is it the Republicans turn to call talk radio and talk about "leaving the country forever"?

Logical
10-18-2008, 07:35 PM
Did she claim to write a book?You have a point, no one would find such a claim credible by such a stupid individual.

***SPRAYER
10-18-2008, 07:38 PM
"We need to make housing more affordable" -Libtards

Result: Disaster

"We need to spread the wealth around" -Libtards

Result:

RJ
10-18-2008, 07:54 PM
Did she claim to write a book?


Write a book?

Hell, she hasn't even claimed to have read a book.

But she did consider burning some. :D

patteeu
10-18-2008, 08:24 PM
"We need to make housing more affordable" -Libtards

Result: Disaster

"We need to spread the wealth around" -Libtards

Result:

Excellent point. I think I know the answer.

splatbass
10-18-2008, 09:10 PM
Did she claim to write a book?

Obama doesn't need a ghost writer. He was editor of Harvard Review, he knows how to write.

Donger
10-18-2008, 09:12 PM
Of course it would be permanent. Does anyone think that when the government gets control of your health coverage, they are ever going to give it up?

RJ
10-18-2008, 09:25 PM
Of course it would be permanent. Does anyone think that when the government gets control of your health coverage, they are ever going to give it up?


Yes. You will eventually die.

Seriously, have you noticed that Obama's plan does not require you to change one damn thing about your health coverage? You like your plan? Keep your plan. What's hard about that?

Or do you see this as a vast left wing conspiracy to control everyone's doctor appointments?

Donger
10-18-2008, 09:34 PM
Yes. You will eventually die.

Seriously, have you noticed that Obama's plan does not require you to change one damn thing about your health coverage? You like your plan? Keep your plan. What's hard about that?

Or do you see this as a vast left wing conspiracy to control everyone's doctor appointments?

My issue with his plan is that he says that everyone who wants it will have access to the "same coverage that he does." Tell me, how is someone who makes $25,000/year going to pay for that?

The answer: they won't. Others will. How? Taxes.

And if you think that the federal government will give up that that new source of money any time soon, you're nuts.

This will become the fourth rail.

RJ
10-18-2008, 09:40 PM
My issue with his plan is that he says that everyone who wants it will have access to the "same coverage that he does." Tell me, how is someone who makes $25,000/year going to pay for that?

The answer: they won't. Others will. How? Taxes.

And if you think that the federal government will give up that that new source of money any time soon, you're nuts.

This will become the forth rail.



Do members of congress have a different plan than other federal employees? Maybe I'm wrong, but I've assumed that their health care options are the same as lower level employees. For instance, that a Rep's coverage options would be the same as a clerical person in his/her ofice.

Perhaps I made an incorrect assumption.

J Diddy
10-18-2008, 10:55 PM
Do members of congress have a different plan than other federal employees? Maybe I'm wrong, but I've assumed that their health care options are the same as lower level employees. For instance, that a Rep's coverage options would be the same as a clerical person in his/her ofice.

Perhaps I made an incorrect assumption.

Donger seems to have a great ability to take whatever he wants to take from a statement. No matter if that is what is actually said or not.

Donger
10-18-2008, 11:05 PM
Do members of congress have a different plan than other federal employees? Maybe I'm wrong, but I've assumed that their health care options are the same as lower level employees. For instance, that a Rep's coverage options would be the same as a clerical person in his/her ofice.

Perhaps I made an incorrect assumption.

As I understand it, federal employees are not unlike private employees when it comes to health coverage. Their employer, the government, pays for most of their premium and they pay the rest.

Here's the fun part: are the people who would take this same insurance federal employees?

RJ
10-18-2008, 11:15 PM
As I understand it, federal employees are not unlike private employees when it comes to health coverage. Their employer, the government, pays for most of their premium and they pay the rest.

Here's the fun part: are the people who would take this same insurance federal employees?


Here's the other fun part.

You and I are already paying for those people.

Have you visited an emergency room lately?

jAZ
10-18-2008, 11:23 PM
I find it odd that I was ridiculted endlessly when I pointed this basic factor out 6 months ago.

Repubilcans were far more afraid of Obama as the nominee (than Clinton or Edwards, etc) because they could see that he had the potential to usher in a Reagan and Kennedy-like change in the electorate by pulling the nation together in a move toward back leftward toward the center.

Now that Obama is the primary winner and the Repubilcans are losing to him at the moment, they aren't denying the fact, they are trying to use their fears as a campaign storyline.

Funny how that goes.

Donger
10-18-2008, 11:30 PM
Here's the other fun part.

You and I are already paying for those people.

Have you visited an emergency room lately?

I don't agree with that law. And, I don't want it expanded or replaced with this.

banyon
10-18-2008, 11:32 PM
I don't agree with that law. And, I don't want it expanded or replaced with this.

You don't agree that Hospitals should treat critically ill persons without up front payment?

I guess I don't know why I'm surprised at that.

Donger
10-18-2008, 11:33 PM
I find it odd that I was ridiculted endlessly when I pointed this basic factor out 6 months ago.

Repubilcans were far more afraid of Obama as the nominee (than Clinton or Edwards, etc) because they could see that he had the potential to usher in a Reagan and Kennedy-like change in the electorate by pulling the nation together in a move toward back leftward toward the center.

Now that Obama is the primary winner and the Repubilcans are losing to him at the moment, they aren't denying the fact, they are trying to use their fears as a campaign storyline.

Funny how that goes.

People should be afraid of socialist policies. Not all of us has given up the belief that I can do better for my family than the government can.

If you have and believe so, embrace it.

Donger
10-18-2008, 11:35 PM
You don't agree that Hospitals should treat critically ill persons without up front payment?

I guess I don't know why I'm surprised at that.

I have no problem with people using the emergency room for emergencies. But, I do think they should have to pay for it, if not up-front then at least with eventual payment.

I don't agree with the emergency room being using as a free clinic.

J Diddy
10-18-2008, 11:37 PM
People should be afraid of socialist policies. Not all of us has given up the belief that I can do better for my family than the government can.

If you have and believe so, embrace it.

Nobody is saying you cant. why did you choose to come to this country?

J Diddy
10-18-2008, 11:38 PM
I have no problem with people using the emergency room for emergencies. But, I do think they should have to pay for it, if not up-front then at least with eventual payment.

I don't agree with the emergency room being using as a free clinic.

Imagine a world where all Americans could have health insurance.

Donger
10-18-2008, 11:40 PM
Nobody is saying you cant. why did you choose to come to this country?

I was only seven. I was merely a passenger at that point. My parents came here to "escape" the progressively socialist policies in England.

Donger
10-18-2008, 11:43 PM
Imagine a world where all Americans could have health insurance.

They all can now, if it weren't for pre-conditions (which I do disagree with). We have a program that costs billions in place now (Medicaid) for those who need it.

For those who can afford it and chose not to?

I can't say that I have much sympathy.

keg in kc
10-18-2008, 11:43 PM
So what if Obama is elected? After four years, Americans will realize they've been sold a bill of goods by the left-wing media, and vote him back out again. Then we can live happily ever after. Right?If america isn't smart enough to vote out one of the worst presidents in US history in W, I'm not sure why anybody would think they'd be smart enough to vote Obama out if he's a disaster.

Logical
10-18-2008, 11:45 PM
I was only seven. I was merely a passenger at that point. My parents came here to "escape" the progressively socialist policies in England.Irony thy name is Donger.

Donger
10-18-2008, 11:46 PM
Irony thy name is Donger.

Pardon?

Logical
10-18-2008, 11:49 PM
Pardon?Your parents moved here to provide you a life away from socialism, not realizing that was not just a trend in Great Britain but worldwide and would soon come to the US where you have become an adult.

Donger
10-18-2008, 11:51 PM
Your parents moved here to provide you a life away from socialism, not realizing that was not just a trend in Great Britain but worldwide and would soon come to the US where you have become an adult.

Yeah, well, it was good while it lasted. The march of devolution is relentless.

Every, single relative that comes over here does nothing but complain about life there, and marvels at our country. How good and inexpensive the food is. How clean and well-maintained our countryside is. How friendly and happy the people are.

It's a shame that most Americans will never see that.

jAZ
10-18-2008, 11:53 PM
People should be afraid of socialist policies. Not all of us has given up the belief that I can do better for my family than the government can.

If you have and believe so, embrace it.

Well, maybe your family should build their own roads and secure your own boarders or admit you are a socialist.

Logical
10-18-2008, 11:53 PM
Yeah, well, it was good while it lasted. The march of devolution is relentless.By the way no offense was meant by my irony comment. That is just how it struck me when you told your story.

Donger
10-18-2008, 11:55 PM
Well, maybe your family should build their own roads and secure your own boarders or admit you are a socialist.

I have no problem with government providing what I cannot.

Donger
10-18-2008, 11:56 PM
By the way no offense was meant by my irony comment. That is just how it struck me when you told your story.

None taken. It is indeed ironic. My dad and I were talking about that just last weekend.

jAZ
10-18-2008, 11:57 PM
I have no problem with government providing what I cannot.
Yeah, lots of people feel that way about healthcare too, but they are just socialists.

Logical
10-19-2008, 12:00 AM
None taken. It is indeed ironic. My dad and I were talking about that just last weekend.By the way there are many things I think the government should stay out of, ownership of financial establishments being a primary example. I understand that many will never be able to get insurance and I am fine with the government remedying that as not doing so actually provides a bigger financial penalty on the rest of us than doing so. I don't want to see healthcare provided by the government but I am fine with insurance.

Donger
10-19-2008, 12:01 AM
Yeah, lots of people feel that way about healthcare too, but they are just socialists.

The ones who want the government to subsidize health coverage? Yes, I'd say that's a darn good step in the socialist direction.

Does Barack Hussein's plan require coverage for any specific part of the population, BTW?

jAZ
10-19-2008, 12:04 AM
The ones who want the government to subsidize health coverage? Yes, I'd say that's a darn good step in the socialist direction.
The person with a $1300/month income and a $1000/month healcare premium and like you agree with the standard that they "have no problem with government providing what I cannot" are socialists when you are not?

How does that work exactly?

jAZ
10-19-2008, 12:06 AM
Does Barack Hussein's plan require coverage for any specific part of the population, BTW?
I don't exactly understand the question, and I'm not sure I'd know the answer without looking it up, so I'll let you investigate your own question and report back you answer.

Start here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Donger
10-19-2008, 12:07 AM
The person with a $1300/month income and a $1000/month healcare premium and like you agree with the standard that they "have no problem with government providing what I cannot" are socialists when you are not?

How does that work exactly?

I would assume that person would qualify for Medicaid, would they not?

You know, the government assistance that is already available for people who can't afford it?

Donger
10-19-2008, 12:08 AM
I don't exactly understand the question, and I'm not sure I'd know the answer without looking it up, so I'll let you investigate your own question and report back you answer.

Start here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Yeah, I just did.

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's health care plan, as outlined on his campaign Web site, says an Obama administration "will require that all children have health care coverage." The site refers to coverage for children as a "mandate." The plan says parents will be assisted in signing up their children for coverage either through private insurers, government programs such as Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) or unspecified "options established by the Obama plan."

Beyond raising the possibility that parents may have to prove health care coverage before children can be enrolled in daycare or school, the Web site does not address fines or any other penalties for parents who do not obtain health care coverage for their children.

Obama was quoted last year during the Democratic primary campaign as saying he would fine parents if they did not enroll their children.

According to the Des Moines (Iowa) Register, Obama told reporters in November 2007: "If they don't have health care, we will work with the parents to make sure that it's provided, and it would be mandatory. Parents will not have an option. And I would fine parents if for some reason they refused." He did not specify the amount of any fine.

Nice.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 12:18 AM
I was only seven. I was merely a passenger at that point. My parents came here to "escape" the progressively socialist policies in England.

So it had nothing to do about the greatness of this country?

Donger
10-19-2008, 12:19 AM
So it had nothing to do about the greatness of this country?

Of course it did.

Logical
10-19-2008, 12:24 AM
I would assume that person would qualify for Medicaid, would they not?

You know, the government assistance that is already available for people who can't afford it?While I believe this is true, I have heard that getting signed up is very difficult and many people are embarrassed so they don't finish the process. The difficulty needs to be addressed.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 12:35 AM
Of course it did.

"I am my brother's keeper"

jAZ
10-19-2008, 12:40 AM
I would assume that person would qualify for Medicaid, would they not?

You know, the government assistance that is already available for people who can't afford it?

The one that 60% of poor people don't qualify for (http://www2.citizen.org/hrg/medicaid/assets/reports/2007UnsettlingScores.pdf)?

jAZ
10-19-2008, 12:44 AM
I would assume that person would qualify for Medicaid, would they not?
BTW, do you support your tax dollars being used to support Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security like you do other programs that people can't afford to provide for themselves?

Donger
10-19-2008, 12:52 AM
The one that 60% of poor people don't qualify for (http://www2.citizen.org/hrg/medicaid/assets/reports/2007UnsettlingScores.pdf)?

As I understand it, virtually all children of low-income parents qualify for Medicaid. The adults are a different issue. I think that they should be qualified for a certain period of time.

It should still be a safety net, not a way of life, for the adults.

Donger
10-19-2008, 12:54 AM
BTW, do you support your tax dollars being used to support Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security like you do other programs that people can't afford to provide for themselves?

When used as a safety net, I support Medicaid, especially for kids of low-income parents. Medicare? Not so much. SS? No, I find the very concept repugnant.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 12:55 AM
As I understand it, virtually all children of low-income parents qualify for Medicaid. The adults are a different issue. I think that they should be qualified for a certain period of time.

It should still be a safety net, not a way of life, for the adults.

So basically you don't have answers just criticism of others answers.

Donger
10-19-2008, 12:58 AM
So basically you don't have answers just criticism of others answers.

Am I critical of government-run health coverage? Absolutely. They can't even get Medicaid right, and you want to give them more power?

Logical
10-19-2008, 12:59 AM
When used as a safety net, I support Medicaid, especially for kids of low-income parents. Medicare? Not so much. SS? No, I find the very concept repugnant.Just curious does England have something like SS?

jAZ
10-19-2008, 01:01 AM
As I understand it, virtually all children of low-income parents qualify for Medicaid. The adults are a different issue. I think that they should be qualified for a certain period of time.

It should still be a safety net, not a way of life, for the adults.
Maybe we should allow you to use pubilc roadways only as a safety net so or until your income level reaches the point you are able to purchase a used...

http://www.a1offroadbuggies.co.uk/image/joyner_greensm.jpg

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:02 AM
Just curious does England have something like SS?

I don't know.

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:04 AM
Maybe we should allow you to use pubilc roadways only as a safety net so or until your income level reaches the point you are able to purchase a used...

http://www.a1offroadbuggies.co.uk/image/joyner_greensm.jpg

Silliness.

RustShack
10-19-2008, 01:08 AM
Obama is the man! The only reason people don't want him is because he will help the middle class instead of the rich fucks.

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:09 AM
So, what do folks think about Barack Hussein wanting to mandate coverage for kids, and fining their parents if they don't?

Okay with that?

jAZ
10-19-2008, 01:17 AM
Silliness.
Not even remotely. There are a lot of ways to function without the government building roads. We ask them to build them because it helps our quality of life, improves the effectiveness of capitalism, it reduces the costs of houses built buy real estate developers.

Logical
10-19-2008, 01:19 AM
So, what do folks think about Barack Hussein wanting to mandate coverage for kids, and fining their parents if they don't?

Okay with that?I guess it depends on the details, if people are just being stupid and putting their children at risk then I would be OK with it.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 01:25 AM
Am I critical of government-run health coverage? Absolutely. They can't even get Medicaid right, and you want to give them more power?

problem with medicaid is they are playing an unwinnable game. Fix the game fix the system.

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:25 AM
Not even remotely. There are a lot of ways to function without the government building roads. We ask them to build them because it helps are quality of life, improves the effectiveness of capitalism, it reduces the costs of houses built buy real estate developers.

Yes, jAZ. I could have built the interstate system.

As I said, silliness.

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:26 AM
I guess it depends on the details, if people are just being stupid and putting their children at risk then I would be OK with it.

Ask Barack Hussein what the details are, I guess.

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:26 AM
problem with medicaid is they are playing an unwinnable game. Fix the game fix the system.

I have no idea what this means.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 01:27 AM
So, what do folks think about Barack Hussein wanting to mandate coverage for kids, and fining their parents if they don't?

Okay with that?

Last I checked his plan was to make insurance on everyone mandatory. This would eliminate the exhorbant amount of medical bills brought on by dead beats.

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:28 AM
Last I checked his plan was to make insurance on everyone mandatory. This would eliminate the exhorbant amount of medical bills brought on by dead beats.

Even better, although I think you are confusing him with Hillary.

jAZ
10-19-2008, 01:29 AM
Yes, jAZ. I could have built the interstate system.

As I said, silliness.
Oh... I get it. If you personally can't accomplish it yourself, directly... then it's ok for the government to do it on your behalf. Or are you suggesting that real estate developers are unable to build roads, only driveways.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 01:29 AM
I have no idea what this means.

The system is broke, trying to find an economical solution to make it work is like getting a tune up on a car without a motor.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 01:30 AM
Even better, although I think you are confusing him with Hillary.

Nope.

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:39 AM
Oh... I get it. If you personally can't accomplish it yourself, directly... then it's ok for the government to do it on your behalf. Or are you suggesting that real estate developers are unable to build roads, only driveways.

As I said, I'm referring directly to the interstate system. And it's just one example. National defense is another.

But, you knew this.

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:40 AM
The system is broke, trying to find an economical solution to make it work is like getting a tune up on a car without a motor.

Yes, because government involvement has done a bang-up job with managing health care so far.

jAZ
10-19-2008, 01:43 AM
As I said, I'm referring directly to the interstate system. And it's just one example. National defense is another.

But, you knew this.

So someone who supports tax dollars used to build intercity, intracity and intrastate highways and and roadways is a socialist? Presumably you object to your tax dollars being used for all of these purposes then?

jAZ
10-19-2008, 01:45 AM
National defense is another.
So you are in favor of wealth redistribution from middle class of Colorado to elite of Washington DC and New York?

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 01:48 AM
Yes, because government involvement has done a bang-up job with managing health care so far.

There trying to fit square pegs in round holes. They need to rewrite the system.

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:56 AM
So someone who supports tax dollars used to build intercity, intracity and intrastate highways and and roadways is a socialist? Presumably you object to your tax dollars being used for all of these purposes then?

No, it isn't. For me, a key component of socialist policy is government doing for me what I can (and want) to do for myself. Therefore, since I couldn't build the interstate system by myself, it isn't a socialist policy.

Sorry, I thought that was clear.

Donger
10-19-2008, 01:57 AM
So you are in favor of wealth redistribution from middle class of Colorado to elite of Washington DC and New York?

Are you getting nervous, jAZ?

Logical
10-19-2008, 01:59 AM
No, it isn't. For me, a key component of socialist policy is government doing for me what I can (and want) to do for myself. Therefore, since I couldn't build the interstate system by myself, it isn't a socialist policy.

Sorry, I thought that was clear.Not wanting to interfere, but I think the point might be that private enterprise could build the roads and they could all be toll roads. Yet we allow for this area to be socialist in our economy.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 02:04 AM
No, it isn't. For me, a key component of socialist policy is government doing for me what I can (and want) to do for myself. Therefore, since I couldn't build the interstate system by myself, it isn't a socialist policy.

Sorry, I thought that was clear.

Because you can successfully operate on yourself and/or family.

Donger
10-19-2008, 02:06 AM
Not wanting to interfere, but I think the point might be that private enterprise could build the roads and they could all be toll roads. Yet we allow for this area to be socialist in our economy.

As you (hopefully) know, the interstate system was built with national defense in mind.

jAZ
10-19-2008, 02:07 AM
No, it isn't. For me, a key component of socialist policy is government doing for me what I can (and want) to do for myself. Therefore, since I couldn't build the interstate system by myself, it isn't a socialist policy.

Sorry, I thought that was clear.
I'm lost.

Your boundry between good and bad Socialism doesn't involve any sort of objective definiation, but hinges are the subjective interepreation of what you are able and willing to do for yourself?

If you can't do it directly yourself (like perform brain surgery lets say) or you don't want to (assume the same) then having the government either do it directly or use your tax dollars to pay a professional to do it for you... is acceptable socialism in your mind?

jAZ
10-19-2008, 02:07 AM
Are you getting nervous, jAZ?

Not in Tucson.

Donger
10-19-2008, 02:09 AM
Because you can successfully operate on yourself and/or family.

No, but I can provide my family with the health insurance that facilitates such medical care (or I can just pay cash).

Honestly, we're going around and around here. I want government involvement in my life to be minimized. It's that simple. If you want the government more involved and more in control of your life, vote for Barack Hussein.

Donger
10-19-2008, 02:11 AM
I'm lost.

Your boundry between good and bad Socialism doesn't involve any sort of objective definiation, but hinges are the subjective interepreation of what you are able and willing to do for yourself?

If you can't do it directly yourself (like perform brain surgery lets say) or you don't want to (assume the same) then having the government either do it directly or use your tax dollars to pay a professional to do it for you... is acceptable socialism in your mind?

See above.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 02:14 AM
As you (hopefully) know, the interstate system was built with national defense in mind.

perhaps, do you feel it's continued implementation and upkeep is with national defense in mind?

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 02:18 AM
No, but I can provide my family with the health insurance that facilitates such medical care (or I can just pay cash).

Honestly, we're going around and around here. I want government involvement in my life to be minimized. It's that simple. If you want the government more involved and more in control of your life, vote for Barack Hussein.

if you're gonna give the first name and the middle name you should also include the last name. If you call him the first and middle it's implying that it's his last name. A mere republican trick of deception and yes I know you're not republican.

I find it amazing however that you feel that barack hussein obama is the bogeyman coming to get all your money.

Logical
10-19-2008, 02:23 AM
As you (hopefully) know, the interstate system was built with national defense in mind.Yes true

DaneMcCloud
10-19-2008, 02:36 AM
No, but I can provide my family with the health insurance that facilitates such medical care (or I can just pay cash).

Honestly, we're going around and around here. I want government involvement in my life to be minimized. It's that simple. If you want the government more involved and more in control of your life, vote for Barack Hussein.

I fail to understand how reallocating money from the "War Machine" to health insurance for those who can't afford it automatically becomes "Socialism".

That seems to me to be a huge leap.

Donger
10-19-2008, 02:43 AM
perhaps, do you feel it's continued implementation and upkeep is with national defense in mind?

Partly, yes.

Donger
10-19-2008, 02:44 AM
if you're gonna give the first name and the middle name you should also include the last name. If you call him the first and middle it's implying that it's his last name. A mere republican trick of deception and yes I know you're not republican.

I find it amazing however that you feel that barack hussein obama is the bogeyman coming to get all your money.

I think he's coming to get most people's money. He can't do everything he wants to do by just taxing "the rich" or deficit spending.

J Diddy
10-19-2008, 03:15 AM
I think he's coming to get most people's money. He can't do everything he wants to do by just taxing "the rich" or deficit spending.

You know the funny thing is after the bailout was passed his statement was basically that it would set the implementation of his plans back. Why would that set him back if he planned to just tax more?

patteeu
10-19-2008, 06:47 AM
Obama doesn't need a ghost writer. He was editor of Harvard Review, he knows how to write.

ROFL He didn't write anything as president of the Harvard Law Review. And the only note he did write was unexceptional. Certainly nothing that would lead you to believe that he had a literary gem of a memoir in him.

If you just meant that he knows how to put a subject together with a verb to form a complete sentence, I have no doubt you're right.

penchief
10-19-2008, 07:01 AM
The marginal propensity to work will suffer a nosedive under Obama.

That's bullshit rhetoric that cannot be backed up by facts. As I stated earlier, people were grateful that FDR put them back to work. And investing in our infrastructure would be one the smartest things we could do today just as it was when he did. Everyone, including the capitalists who exploit our country's infrastructure for their own gain, benefit from a strong infrastructure.

For the righties in this country to continue making baseless claims out of ideological resentment just proves that their message consists of nothing more than fear-mongering.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 07:04 AM
I was only seven. I was merely a passenger at that point. My parents came here to "escape" the progressively socialist policies in England.


My Great Grandfather came from Russia in 1913. I think a hatred of Communism is in my DNA.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 07:05 AM
Obama doesn't need a ghost writer. He was editor of Harvard Review, he knows how to write.


Puh-leeze. :rolleyes:

He was made editor because of affirmative action. He doesn't know how to write.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 07:09 AM
Well, maybe your family should build their own roads and secure your own boarders or admit you are a socialist.

Our borders are secure? ROFL

Hey, you do know that our highways were designed by former Nazi engineers? And that the highway system was built to encourage ownership of automobiles?

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 07:16 AM
perhaps, do you feel it's continued implementation and upkeep is with national defense in mind?


Yes, but it's also to sell cars.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 07:19 AM
You know the funny thing is after the bailout was passed his statement was basically that it would set the implementation of his plans back. Why would that set him back if he planned to just tax more?

I don't understand and perhaps you can explain it to me. Why would a bad economy delay his plans?

He can only implement his plans during a "good" economy?

RJ
10-19-2008, 08:09 AM
I have no problem with people using the emergency room for emergencies. But, I do think they should have to pay for it, if not up-front then at least with eventual payment.

I don't agree with the emergency room being using as a free clinic.


What do you base your disagreement on?

tiptap
10-19-2008, 08:31 AM
So, what do folks think about Barack Hussein wanting to mandate coverage for kids, and fining their parents if they don't?

Okay with that?

Yes, emphatically yes. This assures that we get some responsibility from parents for their children. It is an upfront cost. That will provide incentive for choosing to have a child and understanding it isn't just pooping out babies like an Alaskan where you get a dividend from the government.

tiptap
10-19-2008, 08:34 AM
My Great Grandfather came from Russia in 1913. I think a hatred of Communism is in my DNA.

That would be Czarist Russia, you know.

penchief
10-19-2008, 09:29 AM
That would be Czarist Russia, you know.

Good catch.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 09:32 AM
That would be Czarist Russia, you know.

No shit.

The winds of communism were blowing in 1913, and anybody who could find a way out, got out.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 09:33 AM
Good catch.


Ra ra retard.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 09:34 AM
Yes, emphatically yes. This assures that we get some responsibility from parents for their children. It is an upfront cost. That will provide incentive for choosing to have a child and understanding it isn't just pooping out babies like an Alaskan where you get a dividend from the government.

You'd make a great commisar.

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 09:37 AM
You'd make a great commisar.

Really? I'd think it would be your forte. All you have to do is parrot someone else's talking points. :p

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 09:42 AM
Really? I'd think it would be your forte. All you have to do is parrot someone else's talking points. :p

A commisar is an arrogant political hack, put in charge of an industry or institution he or she knows nothing about-- only that communism is the end all be all and shall be applied regardless of disasterous outcomes.

That is why ten million Ukrainians starved to death under Stalin.

I assure you, I prefer to let people who know what they are doing handle their business, and not some central planner in Wash DC. So no, I would not make a good commisar.

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 09:46 AM
A commisar is an arrogant political hack, put in charge of an industry or institution he or she knows nothing about-- only that communism is the end all be all and shall be applied regardless of disasterous outcomes.

I'm well aware of the job description of a "commisar" (sic). I figured you would be pleased that I found you a position that matches your political skill set. Sure, the ideology might be contrary, but you've got the process down pat. :p

That is why ten million Ukrainians starved to death under Stalin.
That's one way to simplify the horror of "Dekulakization", I suppose.



Did you ever hear about the very sincere Armenian students?

They asked their professor "When shall we have true communism? In our lifetimes?"

The professor said calmly "Within twenty years".

The students then asked their professor "OK, but why not do it to the Georgians first?" :p

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 09:49 AM
That's one way to simplify the horror of "Dekulakization", I suppose.



Hows that "Dekulakization" working out in Zimbabwe?

Libtard rationale- Let's starve millions of people so that they may have social justice.

penchief
10-19-2008, 09:52 AM
Ra ra retard.

You should have been more specific. He was living under authoritarian rule but it wasn't communism.

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 09:55 AM
Hows that "Dekulakization" working out in Zimbabwe?


Que? I think you've gotten so wrapped up in Obama Derangement Syndrome that you've blown a blood vessel in your meat computer.

I'm pretty certain I referred to "Dekulakization" as a horror.


However, what is happeneing in Zimbabwer is almost the opposite of Soviet-Era dekulakization.

The Soviets broke up small farms, took the land for the collectives, and forced the people there to work the land or be sent "Beyond the Pale".

The dipshit*s in Zimbabwe have been breaking up large farms (largely owned by Whites), parceling out pieces of those farms to Black "farmers" as a gift of private property from the state, IIRC.

Then most of the "new" farmers are selling out to larger organizations, or just running them into the ground because they have no idea what they are doing.

While theft if involved, it's about the only common ground between the two.

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 10:00 AM
Que? I think you've gotten so wrapped up in Obama Derangement Syndrome that you've blown a blood vessel in your meat computer.

I'm pretty certain I referred to "Dekulakization" as a horror.

Sorry for the misunderstanding then, it didn't come through that way in your post.

;)

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 10:01 AM
You should have been more specific. He was living under authoritarian rule but it wasn't communism.

There are some great books out there about the rise of Soviet Russia. I suggest you read a few.

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 10:02 AM
Sorry for the misunderstanding then, it didn't come through that way in your post.

;)

:hmmm:



That's one way to simplify the horror of "Dekulakization", I suppose.


:shrug:

There are some great books out there about the rise of Soviet Russia. I suggest you read a few.

While they aren't about the founding of the state, I always suggest Conquest's "The Great Terror" and Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago"

Regarding Zimbabwe, one other piece of common ground between the two policies. The end result.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/five-million-people-face-starvation-in-troubled-zimbabwe-966262.html

***SPRAYER
10-19-2008, 10:23 AM
:hmmm:



:shrug:



While they aren't about the founding of the state, I always suggest Conquest's "The Great Terror" and Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago"

Regarding Zimbabwe, one other piece of common ground between the two policies. The end result.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/five-million-people-face-starvation-in-troubled-zimbabwe-966262.html

You show a clear understanding of where communism leads to (Hell).

Yet, you wish to deny that people like B.O. give credence and integrity to such an evil, failed ideology?

Let me ask you a question---

In all of B.O.'s use of his political power to distributed money in his capacity as a chairman on the Annenberg board or as a state legislature in Illinois, can you name one thing that resulted in success?

It seems like everywhere he has channelled funds to, the end result was either no change, or things got worse.

I don't see how elevating this idealist to a federal level to do more of the same is going to make this country better.

I think that was a fair question.

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 10:26 AM
You show a clear understanding of where communism leads to (Hell).

Yet, you wish to deny that people like B.O. give credence and integrity to such an evil, failed ideology?

Let me ask you a question---

In all of B.O.'s use of his political power to distributed money in his capacity as a chairman on the Annenberg board or as a state legislature in Illinois, can you name one thing that resulted in success?

It seems like everywhere he has channelled funds to, the end result was either no change, or things got worse.

I don't see how elevating this idealist to a federal level to do more of the same is going to make this country better.

I think that was a fair question.

Again, you seem to have me confused with an Obama supporter.

I simply don't believe the alarming rhetoric being flung by other side. Specifically, that McCain winning will mean even more and worse wars, nor that Obama will lead us to all sing the Internationale.

To me, it's just political piffle and poppycock.

I will say that my lack of comfort with Obama's economic approach is somewhat balanced (though not enough for me to vote for a unified executive and legislature) by a point Powell raised today. I prefer a SC that is split as we have (and as the country is) between the Left and the Right. I don't want the Moonbats or Wingnuts dominating the Court. IMO, that way lies madness, even more than a unified exec. and legislature.

banyon
10-19-2008, 10:30 AM
Again, you seem to have me confused with an Obama supporter.

I simply don't believe the alarming rhetoric being flung by other side. Specifically, that McCain winning will mean even more and worse wars, nor that Obama will lead us to all sing the Internationale.

To me, it's just political piffle and poppycock.

I will say that my lack of comfort with Obama's economic approach is somewhat balanced (though not enough for me to vote for a Unified executive and legislature) by a point Powell raised today. I prefer a SC that is split as we have (and as the country is) between the Left and the Right.


This is just another old trick of the politically desperate. Remember when Bill Clinton was a Communist because he visited Russia? And we all remember how he immediately transformed us into a Stalinist dictatorship.

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 10:31 AM
This is just another old trick of the politically desperate. Remember when Bill Clinton was a Communist because he visited Russia? And we all remember how he immediately transformed us into a Stalinist dictatorship.

Indeed. Or how Reagan was going to turn us into a Fascist state, end the world in a nuclear fireball, etc.

SSDD.

banyon
10-19-2008, 10:39 AM
Indeed. Or how Reagan was going to turn us into a Fascist state, end the world in a nuclear fireball, etc.

SSDD.

I don't remember hearing abot the nuclear fearmongering agaist Reagan, but perhaps that's just because LBJ's was so direct.

But I will have to give Republicans the nod in fearmongering prowess over the last few election cycles.

Adept Havelock
10-19-2008, 10:43 AM
I don't remember hearing abot the nuclear fearmongering agaist Reagan, but perhaps that's just because LBJ's was so direct.

I think it was more common in '84 than '80.