|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 04 2015 13:17 lastpuritan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 09:53 tadL wrote:
For this you would first need an army that can win wars ^^ WOW. not sure if you are trolling or not bothering yourself with reading some history, indeed usa has won many many many wars. in my case, the most important one was American Revolutionary War. small colonies with many origins but mostly british, for the first time in the history, gain their freedom by beating the shit out of worlds greatest empire, Britain. that shit aint no joke. and count how many victories you see there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
This list is trolling.
Not sure if you read the list ever? Outside of mass murdering the people that once owned the land and fighting around it there is not much left. And we are still proud of you wining with guns against stone. And just because USA call a war won its not won. They call the Iraq War won...ehm nope still a warzone. just one example. And just having tons of help makes you not a winner. It makes you a participant.
But that was not my main point, I see not much trust of the natives to a power like a government. their seem to be a big scare and lack of trust from an outside perspective. so how should a dictatorship work there if right now people are not willing to give up power to the government they voted for? Ruling with terror just works for some time.
But that's just my outside perspective. I cant understand USA so I will not pretend to do.
|
Canada11607 Posts
Sure, and you can argue that America has technically hardly gone to war at all because they've only made a declaration of war six times or so. But it's a pedantic point and not a very good one. Your tone is largely insulting and not illuminating.
Maybe there is some merit (doubtful) in proving that US is unlikely to become Nazi Germany, but American prowess in war seems rather besides the point- or at least in the way you are expressing it.
|
Norway28894 Posts
it's not like nazi germany won any wars anyway..
and the nazi germany comparison is really really dumb. the US has many issues but virtually none are of the same nature as the problems of nazi germany.
|
On January 04 2015 18:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
it's not like nazi germany won any wars anyway..
and the nazi germany comparison is really really dumb. the US has many issues but virtually none are of the same nature as the problems of nazi germany.
But....
"What you were doing is allowing words to affect you more than listening to what was actually being said. And that's part of the problem," he said.
"You are just focusing on the words 'Nazi Germany' and completely missing the point of what is being said," he added.
He was also asked about comments that Obamacare was the "worst thing" that's happened in the U.S. "since slavery". Carson said whether the health care reform law was worse than other crises that have gripped the nation, like the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 or the Great Depression, is "not the point".
Source
Can't you see how that screams qualified?!?
|
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Sunday said that he would challenge House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) for the top spot in House GOP leadership.
"We have heard from a lot of Republicans that said, 'I would vote for somebody besides speaker Boehner.' But nobody will put their name out there,” Gohmert said on "Fox and Friends." "That changed yesterday with Ted Yoho."
According to Gohmert, the voters made it clear in 2014 that they want leadership changes.
"There have been numerous examples of problematic Republican leadership, but we were hopeful our leaders got the voters’ message," he said. "However, after our speaker forced through the CRomnibus by passing it with Democratic votes and without time to read it, it seemed clear that we needed new leadership. There had been much discussion."
Later on Sunday, Gohmert issued a statement announcing his intention to run for speaker and explaining that he was inspired to run when his colleague Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) decided to run for speaker.
Gohmert assured that a crowded GOP field for speaker would not hurt the Republican party.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
why do republicans get so mad about obamacare. honest question.
|
On January 05 2015 02:16 oneofthem wrote:
why do republicans get so mad about obamacare. honest question.
Anything remotely successful to this President undermines their attempts to make him a do nothing President, which is why they block anything and everything he tries to do. Not to mention the casual racism/nationalism that flows through the GOP right now with among it's most outspoken and Conservative members.
|
On January 05 2015 02:16 oneofthem wrote:
why do republicans get so mad about obamacare. honest question.
Because its just a big pork bill for insurance and pharma companies.
"Buy these companies services or we'll fine/jail you."
|
That is not the reason. They opposed monopsony single-payer plans.
|
On January 05 2015 02:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 02:16 oneofthem wrote:
why do republicans get so mad about obamacare. honest question. Because its just a big pork bill for insurance and pharma companies. "Buy these companies services or we'll fine/jail you."
Which oddly enough the ACA in it's current form is/was a Republican idea.
|
Calling it a Republican idea is a dishonest sell. Massachusetts isn't republican by any measurement and Romney Is hardly a champion of Conservativeatism.
I don't think republicans really hate the aca it's just smart to because of how tied it was to the parties recovery after the bush years. It's also really easy to portray as socialism because we'll it is. I think it should allow states to have more control over its aplication to better tailor it to people's needs. Minnesota needs it in different languages then say Florida and had much different infrastructure.
Also Minnesota invents a ton of medical tech and has the best VA and hospital in the nation come at me.
|
^
This is true in modern politics, because conservatives now follow highlander rules. THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!!!
|
On January 05 2015 02:38 IgnE wrote:
That is not the reason. They opposed monopsony single-payer plans.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can oppose single-payer plans for one reason, and the ACA for another.
|
No, they are. If that was the only reason, the main reason, then you can accomplish the goal of universal healthcare with a single payer. If that was the main reason then they would not respond by saying, "well let's just scrap the whole idea then." But they do want to scrap universal healthcare because they think healthcare is a privilege rather than a right.
|
On January 05 2015 02:16 oneofthem wrote:
why do republicans get so mad about obamacare. honest question.
because they worked hard to remove this and the companys that asked reagon to fuck up your healthcare system made millions of dollars. and as they give a lot of money in exchange to republicans they are ofc scared that they will have less money.
its as always about money. as simple as that.
|
On January 05 2015 05:30 IgnE wrote:
No, they are. If that was the only reason, the main reason, then you can accomplish the goal of universal healthcare with a single payer. If that was the main reason then they would not respond by saying, "well let's just scrap the whole idea then." But they do want to scrap universal healthcare because they think healthcare is a privilege rather than a right.
1) Healthcare isn't in the Bill of Rights anywhere.
2) There's no reason you can't be opposed to the ACA for one reason, and opposed to a single-payer plan for another.
|
On January 04 2015 17:26 tadL wrote:
And we are still proud of you wining with guns against stone.
Oh, they had guns. You should go read about the Comanche Empire if you think that "How The West Was Won" was basically about guns versus tomahawks. This is not to apologize for genocide, but to push back against the idea of indigenous america as being a bunch of passive, non-agential primitives
not that any of this is relevant to whatever y'all are arguing about I suppose
|
On January 05 2015 02:16 oneofthem wrote:
why do republicans get so mad about obamacare. honest question.
It's a politically popular move. It's easy to play off of 'lower spending = worse benefits' and for most people, costs are mainly paid for by the employer, so who cares if costs go down? Then there are people who get taxed more and don't like that and people who work in healthcare that will see the burden of lower costs hit them in a negative way.
Edit: a lot of people were also upset by the process. Dems were claiming it was transparent, when it wasn't, and using a lot of spin to get the ACA passed (ex. Grubergate). Basically a complete 180 from how reforms were discussed and implemented in MA.
|
CLEVELAND — The Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office has classified the November death of a 37-year-old woman who was in police custody as a homicide.
Tanisha Anderson died Nov. 12 at hospital after being handcuffed, taken into custody by Cleveland police and then losing consciousness while having a mental-health episode.
Relatives said the 37-year-old was schizophrenic, and they claimed an officer used excessive force.
According to the medical examiner, Anderson's death was caused by a "sudden death associated with physical restraint" in a lying face-down position.
A recent Department of Justice report found Cleveland police engage in a pattern of using excessive force and specifically mentioned treatment of the mentally ill as an issue.
Federal investigators spent 18 months looking into use of force policies in Cleveland after a series of well-publicized incidents, including the killing of two unarmed civilians in a hail of police gunfire after a high-speed chase.
The Justice Department's finding will force the city to devise a plan to reform the police department. That plan must be approved by a federal judge and will be overseen by an independent monitor.
Source
I don't think calling the police when someone is having a mental episode is really the best idea too often. Probably be better off getting a tranq gun if you know you have a family member with mental problems.
|
On January 05 2015 06:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 05:30 IgnE wrote:
No, they are. If that was the only reason, the main reason, then you can accomplish the goal of universal healthcare with a single payer. If that was the main reason then they would not respond by saying, "well let's just scrap the whole idea then." But they do want to scrap universal healthcare because they think healthcare is a privilege rather than a right. 1) Healthcare isn't in the Bill of Rights anywhere. 2) There's no reason you can't be opposed to the ACA for one reason, and opposed to a single-payer plan for another.
"For one reason" implies that it's a but-for reason. As in, but for the fact that ACA forces plans that are ridiculously profitable to the insurance industry on everyone, I would have been for it. The reality is that most conservatives are against ACA and a fortiori are against single-payer. That is to say, the reason(s) they are against single-payer is also a reason(s) they are against ACA. So stop pretending otherwise.
As to 1 who the fuck cares. Do you only believe in things that the Bill of Rights mentions? It's totally irrelevant. They don't believe healthcare is a right. Fact. You don't either. It's Bill-of-rightness is tangential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
