|
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. |
Florida, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado primaries...those will be decided on or before March 8th.
Those are 5 of the 6 or so states that matter, and whoever the candidate is needs to prove they can win there.
If Jeb wants it to happen, the Florida primary could be pushed back 2 weeks so it can convert from proportional to winner-take-all. That might be the key decision to the entire nomination contest.
|
On January 05 2015 13:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 12:39 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2015 10:49 IgnE wrote:On January 05 2015 10:29 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2015 09:00 coverpunch wrote: Republicans don't like the individual mandate of the ACA because they believe it is punitive to force individuals to pay for other people's care, which is how it seeks to expand and pay for care for the neediest citizens. State's rights advocates, particularly in the South, don't like that the bulk of the burden for constructing and maintaining this system falls on the states while enforcement is done on the federal level, which again feels like an overbearing government forcing people to do things they don't want to do.
I think it is singularly unhelpful to make the arguments in inflammatory partisan terms. Leave that to the politicians please. Three cheers for stating it succinctly in a single paragraph. Ignore the trolls that try to reshape the debate into some easily digestible bedtime story about how the mean people don't like people having healthcare. The level of disingenuousness in this thread is astounding. It is entirely against the spirit of debate to declare repeatedly that the debate is over, it's time to shut up and admit to mental disease. Oh, and be sure to drag the dead horse out, and beat it again and again. With Democratic majorities in House and Senate, and a Democrat in the White House, they were forced to turn out flawed, compromise legislation, when they excluded all Republicans in their closed door meetings to craft this, and convince not a single Republican in either house to vote for it. I get a great laugh seeing how deep bipartisanship is in the dumpster whenever Democrats are in power. It's only an issue when they can't convince the American people to vote in their platform/agenda. Those mean trolls. Pesky as facts. You are against everyone having healthcare. The hows and whys don't change that. Just come out and say "I don't think people should be entitled to healthcare for these reasons." It's not hard. You take the role of demagogue because you're being lazy, and frankly you're above that. No sane person requires the other to say they are pro-death if they take the opposite side on abortion. Only the truly despicable person proposes a subsidy for ice cream for little kids, then criticizes any opponent saying they are, "Against little children having ice cream." It should be beneath you to argue in such a fashion, because you're leaning towards espousing everything reprehensible about politicians of both parties. If that's the level of debate you wish to debase yourself to, also know that those idiots against 50$ minimum wage seek poverty for all. This only came up because of some foolish talk about the "reasons" behind conservatives opposing ACA. They oppose ACA because they oppose universal healthcare, not because it lines the insurance industry's pockets.
That's why I oppose the aca, I feel it picks winners in the insurance industry and enforces rent seeking middle men. I can hardly be called a republican though.
|
On January 05 2015 14:04 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 13:17 IgnE wrote:On January 05 2015 12:39 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2015 10:49 IgnE wrote:On January 05 2015 10:29 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2015 09:00 coverpunch wrote: Republicans don't like the individual mandate of the ACA because they believe it is punitive to force individuals to pay for other people's care, which is how it seeks to expand and pay for care for the neediest citizens. State's rights advocates, particularly in the South, don't like that the bulk of the burden for constructing and maintaining this system falls on the states while enforcement is done on the federal level, which again feels like an overbearing government forcing people to do things they don't want to do.
I think it is singularly unhelpful to make the arguments in inflammatory partisan terms. Leave that to the politicians please. Three cheers for stating it succinctly in a single paragraph. Ignore the trolls that try to reshape the debate into some easily digestible bedtime story about how the mean people don't like people having healthcare. The level of disingenuousness in this thread is astounding. It is entirely against the spirit of debate to declare repeatedly that the debate is over, it's time to shut up and admit to mental disease. Oh, and be sure to drag the dead horse out, and beat it again and again. With Democratic majorities in House and Senate, and a Democrat in the White House, they were forced to turn out flawed, compromise legislation, when they excluded all Republicans in their closed door meetings to craft this, and convince not a single Republican in either house to vote for it. I get a great laugh seeing how deep bipartisanship is in the dumpster whenever Democrats are in power. It's only an issue when they can't convince the American people to vote in their platform/agenda. Those mean trolls. Pesky as facts. You are against everyone having healthcare. The hows and whys don't change that. Just come out and say "I don't think people should be entitled to healthcare for these reasons." It's not hard. You take the role of demagogue because you're being lazy, and frankly you're above that. No sane person requires the other to say they are pro-death if they take the opposite side on abortion. Only the truly despicable person proposes a subsidy for ice cream for little kids, then criticizes any opponent saying they are, "Against little children having ice cream." It should be beneath you to argue in such a fashion, because you're leaning towards espousing everything reprehensible about politicians of both parties. If that's the level of debate you wish to debase yourself to, also know that those idiots against 50$ minimum wage seek poverty for all. This only came up because of some foolish talk about the "reasons" behind conservatives opposing ACA. They oppose ACA because they oppose universal healthcare, not because it lines the insurance industry's pockets. That's why I oppose the aca, I feel it picks winners in the insurance industry and enforces rent seeking middle men. I can hardly be called a republican though.
But you are pro single-payer right
|
my brother broke his arm around arizona - phoenix, actually he was smoking while driving and he says his phone rang, for a moment he took his eyes away from the road and turns his eyes to the seat next to him to see whos calling. and booooom, another fucking drunk driver hit his arm, destroying elbow.
that day i hated h.care system or whatever you name it. they take us to emergency, then they say go there and take these reports, go there, come here... and whole thing, operation included costs us 13.000 which is crazy !
they even want 2k for some fucking injections. from the point that i look obamas care, he could benefit from my fathers plan and that would around 5.000 max i guess.
and i hear some stories, they say germany, united kingdom, france and even turkey, and israel, and many eu countries have free healthcare if you are a student or working whether with state or not, and many operations, normal checkups, daily visits, dental things whatever, hey doc my back is hurt things are completely free along with the pills or injections or they cost you very small for the pills.
On January 04 2015 17:26 tadL wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2015 13:17 lastpuritan wrote: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.
Winning against Britain is winning against stones? Or Spain.. Come on. Iraq War is of course a US victory. Man, you invade a country continents away, overthrow current regime baathists, execute their leader, completely destroy their army and create a new regime formed as an ally. This is what you call "victory" in my agenda. Sometimes you win a war but that does not end with a beneficial result, i agree with that.
|
On January 05 2015 11:30 Lord Tolkien wrote:To be fair, Bush the Senior was a damn fine president And on what facts do you base that opinion?
|
my brother broke his arm around arizona - phoenix, actually he was smoking while driving and he says his phone rang, for a moment he took his eyes away from the road and turns his eyes to the seat next to him to see whos calling. and booooom, another fucking drunk driver hit his arm, destroying elbow. that day i hated h.care system or whatever you name it. they take us to emergency, then they say go there and take these reports, go there, come here... and whole thing, operation included costs us 13.000 which is crazy ! they even want 2k for some fucking injections. from the point that i look obamas care, he could benefit from my fathers plan and that would around 5.000 max i guess. and i hear some stories, they say germany, united kingdom, france and even turkey, and israel, and many eu countries have free healthcare if you are a student or working whether with state or not, and many operations, normal checkups, daily visits, dental things whatever, hey doc my back is hurt  things are completely free along with the pills or injections or they cost you very small for the pills.
it is not "free"... there is no such things as a "free lunch..."
it is paid for by society with taxes. solidarity is the key word here. rich folks pay more and less fortunate/"poorer" ones less according to their economic output/what burden they can bear.
is it perfect? hell no.
but I would not want to change it for something you had in the states. as some already said, single payer is the way to go.
there is more than a price tag and profit margins to health services.
|
On January 05 2015 19:58 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +my brother broke his arm around arizona - phoenix, actually he was smoking while driving and he says his phone rang, for a moment he took his eyes away from the road and turns his eyes to the seat next to him to see whos calling. and booooom, another fucking drunk driver hit his arm, destroying elbow. that day i hated h.care system or whatever you name it. they take us to emergency, then they say go there and take these reports, go there, come here... and whole thing, operation included costs us 13.000 which is crazy ! they even want 2k for some fucking injections. from the point that i look obamas care, he could benefit from my fathers plan and that would around 5.000 max i guess. and i hear some stories, they say germany, united kingdom, france and even turkey, and israel, and many eu countries have free healthcare if you are a student or working whether with state or not, and many operations, normal checkups, daily visits, dental things whatever, hey doc my back is hurt  things are completely free along with the pills or injections or they cost you very small for the pills. it is not "free"... there is no such things as a "free lunch..." it is paid for by society with taxes. solidarity is the key word here. rich folks pay more and less fortunate/"poorer" ones less according to their economic output/what burden they can bear. is it perfect? hell no. but I would not want to change it for something you had in the states. as some already said, single payer is the way to go. there is more than a price tag and profit margins to health services. Rich people also tax poor people far more than any government ever has or will.
|
That's a good one. Completely obliterating a countries armed forces, police, and goverment, then installing your own puppet doesn't qualify as winning a war? I guess next time we better crush the civies and their infrastructure too to appease the euros. No really were excellent at war, stop hating.
|
If your declared goal is to either "spread freedom" (rofl) or/and get your business into the countries natural ressources, I would hardly call leaving it as a totally unstable warzone "winning". That sounds more like fleeing cause you fucked up.
|
On January 05 2015 19:58 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +my brother broke his arm around arizona - phoenix, actually he was smoking while driving and he says his phone rang, for a moment he took his eyes away from the road and turns his eyes to the seat next to him to see whos calling. and booooom, another fucking drunk driver hit his arm, destroying elbow. that day i hated h.care system or whatever you name it. they take us to emergency, then they say go there and take these reports, go there, come here... and whole thing, operation included costs us 13.000 which is crazy ! they even want 2k for some fucking injections. from the point that i look obamas care, he could benefit from my fathers plan and that would around 5.000 max i guess. and i hear some stories, they say germany, united kingdom, france and even turkey, and israel, and many eu countries have free healthcare if you are a student or working whether with state or not, and many operations, normal checkups, daily visits, dental things whatever, hey doc my back is hurt  things are completely free along with the pills or injections or they cost you very small for the pills. it is not "free"... there is no such things as a "free lunch..." it is paid for by society with taxes. solidarity is the key word here. rich folks pay more and less fortunate/"poorer" ones less according to their economic output/what burden they can bear. is it perfect? hell no. but I would not want to change it for something you had in the states. as some already said, single payer is the way to go. there is more than a price tag and profit margins to health services. I think it's kinda perfect when it is well implemented. I work in Scandinavia, and here it's even better because you don't pay your taxes, your employer does it for you. So in a way, it's just that you have a "lower" salary (we almost only talk net salaries here) but a phenomenal free cover for education, healthcare etc... It also makes the countries inequalities the lowest in the world which is also extremely nice.
|
On January 05 2015 14:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 14:04 Wolfstan wrote:On January 05 2015 13:17 IgnE wrote:On January 05 2015 12:39 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2015 10:49 IgnE wrote:On January 05 2015 10:29 Danglars wrote:On January 05 2015 09:00 coverpunch wrote: Republicans don't like the individual mandate of the ACA because they believe it is punitive to force individuals to pay for other people's care, which is how it seeks to expand and pay for care for the neediest citizens. State's rights advocates, particularly in the South, don't like that the bulk of the burden for constructing and maintaining this system falls on the states while enforcement is done on the federal level, which again feels like an overbearing government forcing people to do things they don't want to do.
I think it is singularly unhelpful to make the arguments in inflammatory partisan terms. Leave that to the politicians please. Three cheers for stating it succinctly in a single paragraph. Ignore the trolls that try to reshape the debate into some easily digestible bedtime story about how the mean people don't like people having healthcare. The level of disingenuousness in this thread is astounding. It is entirely against the spirit of debate to declare repeatedly that the debate is over, it's time to shut up and admit to mental disease. Oh, and be sure to drag the dead horse out, and beat it again and again. With Democratic majorities in House and Senate, and a Democrat in the White House, they were forced to turn out flawed, compromise legislation, when they excluded all Republicans in their closed door meetings to craft this, and convince not a single Republican in either house to vote for it. I get a great laugh seeing how deep bipartisanship is in the dumpster whenever Democrats are in power. It's only an issue when they can't convince the American people to vote in their platform/agenda. Those mean trolls. Pesky as facts. You are against everyone having healthcare. The hows and whys don't change that. Just come out and say "I don't think people should be entitled to healthcare for these reasons." It's not hard. You take the role of demagogue because you're being lazy, and frankly you're above that. No sane person requires the other to say they are pro-death if they take the opposite side on abortion. Only the truly despicable person proposes a subsidy for ice cream for little kids, then criticizes any opponent saying they are, "Against little children having ice cream." It should be beneath you to argue in such a fashion, because you're leaning towards espousing everything reprehensible about politicians of both parties. If that's the level of debate you wish to debase yourself to, also know that those idiots against 50$ minimum wage seek poverty for all. This only came up because of some foolish talk about the "reasons" behind conservatives opposing ACA. They oppose ACA because they oppose universal healthcare, not because it lines the insurance industry's pockets. That's why I oppose the aca, I feel it picks winners in the insurance industry and enforces rent seeking middle men. I can hardly be called a republican though. But you are pro single-payer right
Correct, I support socialized healthcare under state jurisdiction. I do want private competition too though.
|
On January 05 2015 23:39 heliusx wrote: That's a good one. Completely obliterating a countries armed forces, police, and goverment, then installing your own puppet doesn't qualify as winning a war? I guess next time we better crush the civies and their infrastructure too to appease the euros. No really were excellent at war, stop hating.
The US hasn't really won a war since WW II. Vietnam was a disaster,Cuba, and Afghanistan and Iraq aren't really won but at best a Pyrrhic victory. The puppet governments have pretty much no control over their country, there is no progress, and we'll see how long the US backed governments hold on now that the US troops are gone.
|
On January 06 2015 00:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2015 23:39 heliusx wrote: That's a good one. Completely obliterating a countries armed forces, police, and goverment, then installing your own puppet doesn't qualify as winning a war? I guess next time we better crush the civies and their infrastructure too to appease the euros. No really were excellent at war, stop hating. The US hasn't really won a war since WW II. Vietnam was a disaster,Cuba, and Afghanistan and Iraq aren't really won but at best a Pyrrhic victory. The puppet governments have pretty much no control over their country, there is no progress, and we'll see how long the US backed governments hold on now that the US troops are gone. Yeah I guess we haven't won any wars if you change the meaning of "winning a war" from destroying your enemy into nation building. The united states armed forces are the most potent military to ever walk this earth. Get used to it. If the us government decided every man woman and child in Iraq was to be killed, it would happen. Yeah we suck at making nations. What we don't suck at is tearing them down.
|
Heliusx.. Its simple:
Did you achieve your Wargoal? Yes/No. No you didn't. So was the war succesfull/won? Nope.
No one is arguing the potency of the US army when it comes to actual combat... But the success of its Wars isn't measured by how many 2nd World countries it can bomb back into the 3d World, at least not if that wasn't your declared goal.
|
On January 06 2015 01:12 Velr wrote: Heliusx.. Its simple:
Did you achieve your Wargoal? Yes/No. No you didn't. So was the war succesfull/won? Nope.
No one is arguing the potency of the US army when it comes to actual combat... But the success of its Wars isn't measured by how many 2nd World countries it can bomb back into the 3d World, at least not if that wasn't your declared goal.
The goal was to remove the WMD that didn't exist. So I guess by your definiton of winning a war we won? Mission accomplished! Gosh you're debating if a war was won and you don't even know the mission.
|
On January 06 2015 01:06 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2015 00:54 Nyxisto wrote:On January 05 2015 23:39 heliusx wrote: That's a good one. Completely obliterating a countries armed forces, police, and goverment, then installing your own puppet doesn't qualify as winning a war? I guess next time we better crush the civies and their infrastructure too to appease the euros. No really were excellent at war, stop hating. The US hasn't really won a war since WW II. Vietnam was a disaster,Cuba, and Afghanistan and Iraq aren't really won but at best a Pyrrhic victory. The puppet governments have pretty much no control over their country, there is no progress, and we'll see how long the US backed governments hold on now that the US troops are gone. Yeah I guess we haven't won any wars if you change the meaning of "winning a war" from destroying your enemy into nation building. The united states armed forces are the most potent military to ever walk this earth. Get used to it. If the us government decided every man woman and child in Iraq was to be killed, it would happen. Yeah we suck at making nations. What we don't suck at is tearing them down. Well so the goal of the war was to destroy a functioning state and bring chaos to the region. Well I tip my hat to you, mission accomplished.
Oh wait the actual goal was to bring stablity to the region(democracy yay) build a state and defeat global terrorism.
|
On January 06 2015 01:20 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2015 01:12 Velr wrote: Heliusx.. Its simple:
Did you achieve your Wargoal? Yes/No. No you didn't. So was the war succesfull/won? Nope.
No one is arguing the potency of the US army when it comes to actual combat... But the success of its Wars isn't measured by how many 2nd World countries it can bomb back into the 3d World, at least not if that wasn't your declared goal. The goal was to remove the WMD that didn't exist. So I guess by your definiton of winning a war we won? Mission accomplished! Gosh you're debating if a war was won and you don't even know the mission. I doubt the US military spent 10 years, 4000 lives and 2 trillion dollars looking for non-existing WMDs. Whatever they _were_ trying to achieve, I doubt they were successful - therefore I consider the operation a failure. "The war lost" if you will.
|
The goal of every war is to destroy the enemy, building a stable nation is not a war mission and can never achieved via actions of war, but only with humanitarian missions. Claiming otherwise is a needless romanticization of war.
|
On January 06 2015 01:44 Paljas wrote: The goal of every war is to destroy the enemy, building a stable nation is not a war mission and can never achieved via actions of war, but only with humanitarian missions. Claiming otherwise is a needless romanticization of war. It's not a romanticization, quite the opposite. It's considering war as a political tool, the use of violence to reshape the political and economic climate in which your nation or empire exists.
|
Considering something as cruel as war as an legitimate tool to achieve these goals is nothing but wishful thinking. Exactly this kind of reasoning has been used to justify wars, with the iraq war as an recent example.
It glorifies war as an useful way to achieve democracy, freedom and wealth.
|
|
|
|