|
On March 23 2012 08:12 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 00:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 22 2012 17:06 Jibba wrote:On March 22 2012 13:21 Defacer wrote:On March 22 2012 13:11 xDaunt wrote:
Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems. I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt. If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ... It still amazes me that Reagan is held in such high regarded, when his terms yielded both greater economic polarization and a much larger national debt, and he raised taxes 11 times. He cut taxes, then had a budget crisis and began raising them again to compensate. Shit like that Eric Cantor CBS interview where him and his press sec. literally refused to admit that Reagan raised taxes are simply appalling. Aside from social issues, the arcs and themes of Reagan and Obama's term to this point are incredibly similar. I'm with Romantic, that statement is basically gibberish. Employers are doing exactly what they do every election cycle. There's a large amount of uncertainty over whether they'll continue with their own plans, but that's not a crippling decision and it's not relevant to performance today. Statements like "Americans don't feel the improvements, yet" are simply meaningless and completely without evidence. Even major polling groups have a difficult time taking a national temperature on these things, and I severely doubt xDaunt has done any greater delving into the matter than they have. Some Americans haven't felt anything, some Americans have. You're literally dismissing statistics because of a feeling you have, based on your own... local engagement?And don't bring up the inaccuracy of the unemployment rate and other indicators because we know they're inaccurate and have misleading titles. Since their introduction, they have almost always been massaged and manipulated in the same manner. Their purpose is in seeing improvements and declines, not judging an absolute value. So all of the polls out there that consistently show issues like "jobs" and the "economy" being at the forefront of the minds of American voters are meaningless? Did it occur to you that these issues would not be at the top of list if things were demonstrably improving? More importantly, are you actually pretending that democrats and Obama aren't worried about the current state of the economy and how it is impacting their election bids? I sure hope not. Jobs being important and "Americans don't feel the improvement" are completely separate. How can you not see that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other? A recently jobless person who now has a job will still consider jobs to be important. I mean, I'm in one of the most desperate States there is (Michigan) and my perspective on the state of the economy, through observing and talking to people, is opposed to yours. Since you're not using any proof, all there is is your word versus mine.
So you're going to ignore the larger issue of democrats being worried about how the current economy is affecting their election bids just to mindlessly shit on the collateral point of whether Americans are feeling economic improvement? Nice.
|
United States22883 Posts
No, I'm responding to the crap you posted two pages earlier.
Look xDaunt, you've continually had your head in the sand this entire thread and I've seen you spew page after page of bullshit propaganda straight from a stump speech, and been corrected by fellow Republicans and Independents alike. I've been polite about correcting you but by now, you're just being a dismissive ignoramus and the reason I ignore you is because I don't take your posts seriously - they're not worth my time. Unlike Pillage's and even BioNova's and definitely Savio's, you don't put much thought into them and there is rarely anything insightful worth mentioning. It's just another bullet point from today's memo, which factcheck.org will disprove 24 hours later. Reading and responding to your posts is the same effect as banging my head against a wall, with a plastic bag around it filled with industrial glue, while listening to the previous day's episode of The Sean Hannity Show.
No, they're not particularly worried about how the current economy will affect the election because it's not a real contest this year.
No matter what I say, you're eventually going to make a garbage post about oil prices and concerned Americans, despite the fact that it's been pointed out multiple times in this thread that 1) the President has very little control over the global oil market 2) the President has very little control over the productivity of oil refineries 3) tapping into the Naval oil reserve will have an extremely marginal effect to the tune of a few cents per gallon 4) the largest reason for the increase in prices is uncertainty in the Middle East, which will rise dramatically IF Iran is attacked 5) Keystone XL will not only have no effect for over 15 years, but when it does go into effect it will likely RAISE the price of oil in the Midwest. But again, at some point later on in this thread you're going to use the price of gasoline as an indicator that Obama is bad for the economy again, and at that point I'll ignore it just like I hope to ignore the rest of your posts from now on.
|
On March 23 2012 09:48 Jibba wrote:
No, I'm responding to the crap you posted two pages earlier.
Look xDaunt, you've continually had your head in the sand this entire thread and I've seen you spew page after page of bullshit propaganda straight from a stump speech, and been corrected by fellow Republicans and Independents alike. I've been polite about correcting you but by now, you're just being a dismissive ignoramus and the reason I ignore you is because I don't take your posts seriously - they're not worth my time. Unlike Pillage's and even BioNova's and definitely Savio's, you don't put much thought into them and there is rarely anything insightful worth mentioning. It's just another bullet point from today's memo, which factcheck.org will disprove 24 hours later. Reading and responding to your posts is the same effect as banging my head against a wall, with a plastic bag around it filled with industrial glue, while listening to the previous day's episode of
I'm going to be honest. I post almost exclusively in the general forum and mostly in threads that deal with American Politics. I'm not trying to pile on or make this overly personal, but xDaunt, and especially the other posters who take him seriously, is one of the main reasons I don't often post in this thread (which otherwise fits my interests). For a long time, I assumed he was simply trolling. Worse still, it was working, and people took him seriously. I figured there was no way someone could be interested enough in this subject to frequently post in this thread, but also be so consistently misinformed, dishonest, and flat out wrong.
I mean, no one finds this partisan drivel compelling, right? I have to say, after months of following this thread pretty closely, I'm convinced. He's the real deal. He's an amateur Rush Limbaugh or Ed Schultz - someone who has decided which side is the best and will say anything, honest or not, true or not, rational or not, to score points. It's the kind of person who is useful as a means to a political end, but who ultimately damages the discourse. He's can be successful in a limited context (in this case, derailing the conversation), but is almost never worth arguing with.
|
On March 23 2012 08:16 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 06:12 Pillage wrote:On March 22 2012 15:26 Romantic wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 Pillage wrote:Though some indicators have shown a little improvement, Americans don't feel the improvement yet. there's still so much uncertainty in the market which makes growth relatively stagnant. Employers are waiting and holding their breath to see what happens over this election to figure out their next move, its been this way since Obamacare was passed. [Citation Needed] This is quite possibly one of the silliest, I just pulled this out of my ass and coincidentally it alligns perfectly with my political goal of getting Obama out of office economic theories I have ever seen someone unironically trying to pass off on to others. You should write about this "world economy is bad because Obama" theory and try to get a Nobel Prize. All the nations of the world has to do to shake off the financial crisis and Great Recession is to repeal Obamacare in all of their countries and unelect Obama as their president, how simple. You can't be this out of it. Just give it some thought for 10 seconds from the perspective of anyone who owns a business. Right now this country is on the brink of enacting a policy that directly impacts one of the most costly expenditures for anyone, healthcare. For many businesses, they take responsibility for the health coverage of the employees as an incentive to get competent people to work for them. Right now that mandate almost certainly depends on whether or not Obama get re-elected. That's why people are sitting on their assets, waiting to see what will happen. This is only one of the many variable of why the market is volatile right now (we're still recovering from the housing bubble) but it's big variable because healthcare is such a huge part of the budget for everyone. Posts like the one you've made really infuriate me. It seems people here would rather jump to extreme conclusions instead of thinking about what I'm trying to convey. Do I really think Obamacare is the only reason people aren't hiring? Of course not, there's much more too it than that but it sure as shit isn't helping people get hired. I shouldn't have to cite common sense because you're incapable of deducing obvious things yourself. 1 minute of a solid thought process, and I'm sure you could've drawn the same conclusions I have, minus all of the extraneous details that play much smaller roles and are better analyzed by people with more background in the field than either you or me have. Think for once in your life and stop asking for sources for everything, believe it or not, most successful people in life utilize common sense in their decision making processes. These successful people are the ones that are going to get the economy out of the shitter. Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is completely uncalled for, and makes this place a terrible place for debate when you sneer at the opinions of others and talk down to them in satire. I'll make you a deal, you stop being a condescending ass, and I will too ok, I'm more than happy to talk about the issues when people actually address what I bring up instead of simply assuming the worst and insulting me. If you don't want to take that route,well two can play at that game. I might suggest that the use of the term 'Obamacare' is also immediately infuriating and condescending. It's meant as a pejorative and its use immediately turns people off, and makes it difficult to hold a conversation with the opposition. I'd suggest keeping the jargon out of it when you begin the argument. It's similar to when people refer to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. I'm sure I'm guilty of it as well, and it immediately insults the other group and makes for inherently hostile discussions.
Understandable and duly noted. I guess I'll just use PP + ACA as an acronym then.
|
Worse still, it was working, and people took him seriously.
*angry fist*
|
just popped in to say I really hope Santorum wins.
Romney vs Obama = boring
Santorum vs Obama = hilarious in an insane kind of way
|
On March 23 2012 09:48 Jibba wrote:
No, I'm responding to the crap you posted two pages earlier.
Look xDaunt, you've continually had your head in the sand this entire thread and I've seen you spew page after page of bullshit propaganda straight from a stump speech, and been corrected by fellow Republicans and Independents alike. I've been polite about correcting you but by now, you're just being a dismissive ignoramus and the reason I ignore you is because I don't take your posts seriously - they're not worth my time. Unlike Pillage's and even BioNova's and definitely Savio's, you don't put much thought into them and there is rarely anything insightful worth mentioning. It's just another bullet point from today's memo, which factcheck.org will disprove 24 hours later. Reading and responding to your posts is the same effect as banging my head against a wall, with a plastic bag around it filled with industrial glue, while listening to the previous day's episode of The Sean Hannity Show.
No, they're not particularly worried about how the current economy will affect the election because it's not a real contest this year.
No matter what I say, you're eventually going to make a garbage post about oil prices and concerned Americans, despite the fact that it's been pointed out multiple times in this thread that 1) the President has very little control over the global oil market 2) the President has very little control over the productivity of oil refineries 3) tapping into the Naval oil reserve will have an extremely marginal effect to the tune of a few cents per gallon 4) the largest reason for the increase in prices is uncertainty in the Middle East, which will rise dramatically IF Iran is attacked 5) Keystone XL will not only have no effect for over 15 years, but when it does go into effect it will likely RAISE the price of oil in the Midwest. But again, at some point later on in this thread you're going to use the price of gasoline as an indicator that Obama is bad for the economy again, and at that point I'll ignore it just like I hope to ignore the rest of your posts from now on.
But didn't you know, if Obama wasn't president gas would be down to a dollar a gallon! It would be literally so abundant that it would replace water. We would bathe in it! And Americans would be free to drive hummers and ford excursions again!
|
On March 23 2012 11:09 red_b wrote:
just popped in to say I really hope Santorum wins.
Romney vs Obama = boring
Santorum vs Obama = hilarious in an insane kind of way
Agreed it would be hilarious until you realize the fact that it would mean that the majority of republicans in America think like Rick Santorum and then it just becomes horribly horribly depressing :[
|
On March 23 2012 09:48 Jibba wrote:
No, I'm responding to the crap you posted two pages earlier.
Look xDaunt, you've continually had your head in the sand this entire thread and I've seen you spew page after page of bullshit propaganda straight from a stump speech, and been corrected by fellow Republicans and Independents alike.
I can't think of one republican who has corrected me in this thread on something that was factually wrong (other than that "positive liberty" issue which was my mistake). Actually, I can't even think of a republican with whom I have had a disagreement with on anything other than predicting outcomes or analyzing the candidates and their performances. As for "independents," that term doesn't really mean anything because it can encompass everything from socialists to libertarians (or any of the foreigners posting in here).
I've been polite about correcting you but by now, you're just being a dismissive ignoramus and the reason I ignore you is because I don't take your posts seriously - they're not worth my time. Unlike Pillage's and even BioNova's and definitely Savio's, you don't put much thought into them and there is rarely anything insightful worth mentioning. It's just another bullet point from today's memo, which factcheck.org will disprove 24 hours later. Reading and responding to your posts is the same effect as banging my head against a wall, with a plastic bag around it filled with industrial glue, while listening to the previous day's episode of The Sean Hannity Show.
If you say so. For the record, though, I really don't like Hannity.
No, they're not particularly worried about how the current economy will affect the election because it's not a real contest this year.
Nope, democrats aren't worried about the economy at all. It's not like Obama has given speeches in front of joint sessions of Congress about jobs.
No matter what I say, you're eventually going to make a garbage post about oil prices and concerned Americans,
Woah! Tangent! I thought you said that you didn't want respond to me? That's rather odd considering you are bringing up something completely unrelated to the immediate topic at hand. I guess I'll indulge your guilty pleasure....
despite the fact that it's been pointed out multiple times in this thread that 1) the President has very little control over the global oil market 2) the President has very little control over the productivity of oil refineries 3) tapping into the Naval oil reserve will have an extremely marginal effect to the tune of a few cents per gallon 4) the largest reason for the increase in prices is uncertainty in the Middle East, which will rise dramatically IF Iran is attacked 5) Keystone XL will not only have no effect for over 15 years, but when it does go into effect it will likely RAISE the price of oil in the Midwest. But again, at some point later on in this thread you're going to use the price of gasoline as an indicator that Obama is bad for the economy again, and at that point I'll ignore it just like I hope to ignore the rest of your posts from now on.
Let me start with the last sentence first. It's readily apparent that you're so blinded by your prejudice of my opinions that you don't even understand my previous posts on oil prices. As I stated previously, more often than not when I post in this thread, I'm not making a normative political argument so much as I am discussing political issues on a strategic level. Yet, when I say something that appears to be critical or detrimental to democrats or the prospects of democrats winning elections, all you liberal cheerleaders come out of the woodwork with the predictably knee-jerk, partisan response of "No! You're wrong! Democrats don't have any political problems at all!"
For example, when discussing the global oil price issue before, the ultimate point that I made was that Obama and the democrats were going to have problems as the price of oil increased because their very actions of restricting domestic drilling and denying the Keystone XL project made it very easy for republicans to blame them for high domestic gas prices. Yet, people like you completely miss this very simple point and respond with stuff like your narrative above, which is irrelevant. Hell, it is blindingly obvious that Obama and the democrats realize that optics on oil prices matter. Why do you think that he did agree to release oil from the strategic reserve (and funny how even that small action of increasing the supply lowers the price .... hmmm..... oh and don't even get me started on how dishonest it is for Obama to argue that lowering demand will lower prices but somehow increasing supply won't) and start work on the Keystone XL pipeline? Hmmmmmmmmm........
Here's the bottom line. I don't care if you agree with me. I don't care if anyone agrees with me, really. However, get off your high horse with this garbage about "my head being in the sand." The simple truth is that you vehemently disagree with my point of view. If you or anyone else doesn't want to respond to my posts, that's your business. It's not as though I haven't decided to ignore certain posters. Hell, if no one responded to my posts, I probably would just stop posting and this thread can become the liberal circle-jerk discussion of republican politics that many of you seem to want.
|
On March 23 2012 10:41 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 08:16 Jibba wrote:On March 23 2012 06:12 Pillage wrote:On March 22 2012 15:26 Romantic wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 Pillage wrote:Though some indicators have shown a little improvement, Americans don't feel the improvement yet. there's still so much uncertainty in the market which makes growth relatively stagnant. Employers are waiting and holding their breath to see what happens over this election to figure out their next move, its been this way since Obamacare was passed. [Citation Needed] This is quite possibly one of the silliest, I just pulled this out of my ass and coincidentally it alligns perfectly with my political goal of getting Obama out of office economic theories I have ever seen someone unironically trying to pass off on to others. You should write about this "world economy is bad because Obama" theory and try to get a Nobel Prize. All the nations of the world has to do to shake off the financial crisis and Great Recession is to repeal Obamacare in all of their countries and unelect Obama as their president, how simple. You can't be this out of it. Just give it some thought for 10 seconds from the perspective of anyone who owns a business. Right now this country is on the brink of enacting a policy that directly impacts one of the most costly expenditures for anyone, healthcare. For many businesses, they take responsibility for the health coverage of the employees as an incentive to get competent people to work for them. Right now that mandate almost certainly depends on whether or not Obama get re-elected. That's why people are sitting on their assets, waiting to see what will happen. This is only one of the many variable of why the market is volatile right now (we're still recovering from the housing bubble) but it's big variable because healthcare is such a huge part of the budget for everyone. Posts like the one you've made really infuriate me. It seems people here would rather jump to extreme conclusions instead of thinking about what I'm trying to convey. Do I really think Obamacare is the only reason people aren't hiring? Of course not, there's much more too it than that but it sure as shit isn't helping people get hired. I shouldn't have to cite common sense because you're incapable of deducing obvious things yourself. 1 minute of a solid thought process, and I'm sure you could've drawn the same conclusions I have, minus all of the extraneous details that play much smaller roles and are better analyzed by people with more background in the field than either you or me have. Think for once in your life and stop asking for sources for everything, believe it or not, most successful people in life utilize common sense in their decision making processes. These successful people are the ones that are going to get the economy out of the shitter. Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is completely uncalled for, and makes this place a terrible place for debate when you sneer at the opinions of others and talk down to them in satire. I'll make you a deal, you stop being a condescending ass, and I will too ok, I'm more than happy to talk about the issues when people actually address what I bring up instead of simply assuming the worst and insulting me. If you don't want to take that route,well two can play at that game. I might suggest that the use of the term 'Obamacare' is also immediately infuriating and condescending. It's meant as a pejorative and its use immediately turns people off, and makes it difficult to hold a conversation with the opposition. I'd suggest keeping the jargon out of it when you begin the argument. It's similar to when people refer to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. I'm sure I'm guilty of it as well, and it immediately insults the other group and makes for inherently hostile discussions. Understandable and duly noted. I guess I'll just use PP + ACA as an acronym then.
You're actually going to accept his premise that using the term Obamacare is as bad as using the term "Tea Baggers?"
|
On March 23 2012 11:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:41 Pillage wrote:On March 23 2012 08:16 Jibba wrote:On March 23 2012 06:12 Pillage wrote:On March 22 2012 15:26 Romantic wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 Pillage wrote:Though some indicators have shown a little improvement, Americans don't feel the improvement yet. there's still so much uncertainty in the market which makes growth relatively stagnant. Employers are waiting and holding their breath to see what happens over this election to figure out their next move, its been this way since Obamacare was passed. [Citation Needed] This is quite possibly one of the silliest, I just pulled this out of my ass and coincidentally it alligns perfectly with my political goal of getting Obama out of office economic theories I have ever seen someone unironically trying to pass off on to others. You should write about this "world economy is bad because Obama" theory and try to get a Nobel Prize. All the nations of the world has to do to shake off the financial crisis and Great Recession is to repeal Obamacare in all of their countries and unelect Obama as their president, how simple. You can't be this out of it. Just give it some thought for 10 seconds from the perspective of anyone who owns a business. Right now this country is on the brink of enacting a policy that directly impacts one of the most costly expenditures for anyone, healthcare. For many businesses, they take responsibility for the health coverage of the employees as an incentive to get competent people to work for them. Right now that mandate almost certainly depends on whether or not Obama get re-elected. That's why people are sitting on their assets, waiting to see what will happen. This is only one of the many variable of why the market is volatile right now (we're still recovering from the housing bubble) but it's big variable because healthcare is such a huge part of the budget for everyone. Posts like the one you've made really infuriate me. It seems people here would rather jump to extreme conclusions instead of thinking about what I'm trying to convey. Do I really think Obamacare is the only reason people aren't hiring? Of course not, there's much more too it than that but it sure as shit isn't helping people get hired. I shouldn't have to cite common sense because you're incapable of deducing obvious things yourself. 1 minute of a solid thought process, and I'm sure you could've drawn the same conclusions I have, minus all of the extraneous details that play much smaller roles and are better analyzed by people with more background in the field than either you or me have. Think for once in your life and stop asking for sources for everything, believe it or not, most successful people in life utilize common sense in their decision making processes. These successful people are the ones that are going to get the economy out of the shitter. Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is completely uncalled for, and makes this place a terrible place for debate when you sneer at the opinions of others and talk down to them in satire. I'll make you a deal, you stop being a condescending ass, and I will too ok, I'm more than happy to talk about the issues when people actually address what I bring up instead of simply assuming the worst and insulting me. If you don't want to take that route,well two can play at that game. I might suggest that the use of the term 'Obamacare' is also immediately infuriating and condescending. It's meant as a pejorative and its use immediately turns people off, and makes it difficult to hold a conversation with the opposition. I'd suggest keeping the jargon out of it when you begin the argument. It's similar to when people refer to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. I'm sure I'm guilty of it as well, and it immediately insults the other group and makes for inherently hostile discussions. Understandable and duly noted. I guess I'll just use PP + ACA as an acronym then. You're actually going to accept his premise that using the term Obamacare is as bad as using the term "Tea Baggers?"
His point is that they're both stupid terms used to demean something. No one called No Child Left Behind "Bush's-idiotic-eductional-bill". It's not like Obama even drafted the bill or anything. He merely signed it, so i find the term just idiotic in nature.
|
On March 23 2012 11:52 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2012 10:41 Pillage wrote:On March 23 2012 08:16 Jibba wrote:On March 23 2012 06:12 Pillage wrote:On March 22 2012 15:26 Romantic wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 Pillage wrote:Though some indicators have shown a little improvement, Americans don't feel the improvement yet. there's still so much uncertainty in the market which makes growth relatively stagnant. Employers are waiting and holding their breath to see what happens over this election to figure out their next move, its been this way since Obamacare was passed. [Citation Needed] This is quite possibly one of the silliest, I just pulled this out of my ass and coincidentally it alligns perfectly with my political goal of getting Obama out of office economic theories I have ever seen someone unironically trying to pass off on to others. You should write about this "world economy is bad because Obama" theory and try to get a Nobel Prize. All the nations of the world has to do to shake off the financial crisis and Great Recession is to repeal Obamacare in all of their countries and unelect Obama as their president, how simple. You can't be this out of it. Just give it some thought for 10 seconds from the perspective of anyone who owns a business. Right now this country is on the brink of enacting a policy that directly impacts one of the most costly expenditures for anyone, healthcare. For many businesses, they take responsibility for the health coverage of the employees as an incentive to get competent people to work for them. Right now that mandate almost certainly depends on whether or not Obama get re-elected. That's why people are sitting on their assets, waiting to see what will happen. This is only one of the many variable of why the market is volatile right now (we're still recovering from the housing bubble) but it's big variable because healthcare is such a huge part of the budget for everyone. Posts like the one you've made really infuriate me. It seems people here would rather jump to extreme conclusions instead of thinking about what I'm trying to convey. Do I really think Obamacare is the only reason people aren't hiring? Of course not, there's much more too it than that but it sure as shit isn't helping people get hired. I shouldn't have to cite common sense because you're incapable of deducing obvious things yourself. 1 minute of a solid thought process, and I'm sure you could've drawn the same conclusions I have, minus all of the extraneous details that play much smaller roles and are better analyzed by people with more background in the field than either you or me have. Think for once in your life and stop asking for sources for everything, believe it or not, most successful people in life utilize common sense in their decision making processes. These successful people are the ones that are going to get the economy out of the shitter. Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is completely uncalled for, and makes this place a terrible place for debate when you sneer at the opinions of others and talk down to them in satire. I'll make you a deal, you stop being a condescending ass, and I will too ok, I'm more than happy to talk about the issues when people actually address what I bring up instead of simply assuming the worst and insulting me. If you don't want to take that route,well two can play at that game. I might suggest that the use of the term 'Obamacare' is also immediately infuriating and condescending. It's meant as a pejorative and its use immediately turns people off, and makes it difficult to hold a conversation with the opposition. I'd suggest keeping the jargon out of it when you begin the argument. It's similar to when people refer to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. I'm sure I'm guilty of it as well, and it immediately insults the other group and makes for inherently hostile discussions. Understandable and duly noted. I guess I'll just use PP + ACA as an acronym then. You're actually going to accept his premise that using the term Obamacare is as bad as using the term "Tea Baggers?" His point is that they're both stupid terms used to demean something. No one called No Child Left Behind "Bush's-idiotic-eductional-bill". It's not like Obama even drafted the bill or anything. He merely signed it, so i find the term just idiotic in nature.
There's nothing inherently offensive or demeaning about the term "Obamacare" in the same way that there is something offensive and demeaning about "Tea Baggers." If democrats and liberals thought and felt that Obamacare care was both good law (they probably do) and popular with the public (they know it isn't), do you think that there would be any heartburn over the term? Nope, Obama would wear it like a badge of honor, which he ironically tried to do with his recent "Obama Cares" quip.
EDIT: And let me expound upon this point a little bit. Whenever something becomes politically unpopular, the first thing that the left does is seek to change the terminology with the hope that the reason for the unpopularity is merely a marketing issue as opposed to a real disagreement on substance. There's no better example of this than the sudden switch from "global warming" to "climate change" over the past several years.
|
On March 23 2012 11:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 11:52 darthfoley wrote:On March 23 2012 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2012 10:41 Pillage wrote:On March 23 2012 08:16 Jibba wrote:On March 23 2012 06:12 Pillage wrote:On March 22 2012 15:26 Romantic wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 Pillage wrote:Though some indicators have shown a little improvement, Americans don't feel the improvement yet. there's still so much uncertainty in the market which makes growth relatively stagnant. Employers are waiting and holding their breath to see what happens over this election to figure out their next move, its been this way since Obamacare was passed. [Citation Needed] This is quite possibly one of the silliest, I just pulled this out of my ass and coincidentally it alligns perfectly with my political goal of getting Obama out of office economic theories I have ever seen someone unironically trying to pass off on to others. You should write about this "world economy is bad because Obama" theory and try to get a Nobel Prize. All the nations of the world has to do to shake off the financial crisis and Great Recession is to repeal Obamacare in all of their countries and unelect Obama as their president, how simple. You can't be this out of it. Just give it some thought for 10 seconds from the perspective of anyone who owns a business. Right now this country is on the brink of enacting a policy that directly impacts one of the most costly expenditures for anyone, healthcare. For many businesses, they take responsibility for the health coverage of the employees as an incentive to get competent people to work for them. Right now that mandate almost certainly depends on whether or not Obama get re-elected. That's why people are sitting on their assets, waiting to see what will happen. This is only one of the many variable of why the market is volatile right now (we're still recovering from the housing bubble) but it's big variable because healthcare is such a huge part of the budget for everyone. Posts like the one you've made really infuriate me. It seems people here would rather jump to extreme conclusions instead of thinking about what I'm trying to convey. Do I really think Obamacare is the only reason people aren't hiring? Of course not, there's much more too it than that but it sure as shit isn't helping people get hired. I shouldn't have to cite common sense because you're incapable of deducing obvious things yourself. 1 minute of a solid thought process, and I'm sure you could've drawn the same conclusions I have, minus all of the extraneous details that play much smaller roles and are better analyzed by people with more background in the field than either you or me have. Think for once in your life and stop asking for sources for everything, believe it or not, most successful people in life utilize common sense in their decision making processes. These successful people are the ones that are going to get the economy out of the shitter. Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is completely uncalled for, and makes this place a terrible place for debate when you sneer at the opinions of others and talk down to them in satire. I'll make you a deal, you stop being a condescending ass, and I will too ok, I'm more than happy to talk about the issues when people actually address what I bring up instead of simply assuming the worst and insulting me. If you don't want to take that route,well two can play at that game. I might suggest that the use of the term 'Obamacare' is also immediately infuriating and condescending. It's meant as a pejorative and its use immediately turns people off, and makes it difficult to hold a conversation with the opposition. I'd suggest keeping the jargon out of it when you begin the argument. It's similar to when people refer to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. I'm sure I'm guilty of it as well, and it immediately insults the other group and makes for inherently hostile discussions. Understandable and duly noted. I guess I'll just use PP + ACA as an acronym then. You're actually going to accept his premise that using the term Obamacare is as bad as using the term "Tea Baggers?" His point is that they're both stupid terms used to demean something. No one called No Child Left Behind "Bush's-idiotic-eductional-bill". It's not like Obama even drafted the bill or anything. He merely signed it, so i find the term just idiotic in nature. There's nothing inherently offensive or demeaning about the term "Obamacare" in the same way that there is something offensive and demeaning about "Tea Baggers." If democrats and liberals thought and felt that Obamacare care was both good law (they probably do) and popular with the public (they know it isn't), do you think that there would be any heartburn over the term? Nope, Obama would wear it like a badge of honor, which he ironically tried to do with his recent "Obama Cares" quip.
Funny story, the article you linked earlier on the examiner had a comment #2 in likes that compared the intelligence of Obama and his "circus" to that of a "dung beetle".
The point is talk like this gets us fucking nowhere. Dung beetle or obamacare.
edit: Or tea baggers.
|
On March 23 2012 11:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 11:52 darthfoley wrote:On March 23 2012 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2012 10:41 Pillage wrote:On March 23 2012 08:16 Jibba wrote:On March 23 2012 06:12 Pillage wrote:On March 22 2012 15:26 Romantic wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 Pillage wrote:Though some indicators have shown a little improvement, Americans don't feel the improvement yet. there's still so much uncertainty in the market which makes growth relatively stagnant. Employers are waiting and holding their breath to see what happens over this election to figure out their next move, its been this way since Obamacare was passed. [Citation Needed] This is quite possibly one of the silliest, I just pulled this out of my ass and coincidentally it alligns perfectly with my political goal of getting Obama out of office economic theories I have ever seen someone unironically trying to pass off on to others. You should write about this "world economy is bad because Obama" theory and try to get a Nobel Prize. All the nations of the world has to do to shake off the financial crisis and Great Recession is to repeal Obamacare in all of their countries and unelect Obama as their president, how simple. You can't be this out of it. Just give it some thought for 10 seconds from the perspective of anyone who owns a business. Right now this country is on the brink of enacting a policy that directly impacts one of the most costly expenditures for anyone, healthcare. For many businesses, they take responsibility for the health coverage of the employees as an incentive to get competent people to work for them. Right now that mandate almost certainly depends on whether or not Obama get re-elected. That's why people are sitting on their assets, waiting to see what will happen. This is only one of the many variable of why the market is volatile right now (we're still recovering from the housing bubble) but it's big variable because healthcare is such a huge part of the budget for everyone. Posts like the one you've made really infuriate me. It seems people here would rather jump to extreme conclusions instead of thinking about what I'm trying to convey. Do I really think Obamacare is the only reason people aren't hiring? Of course not, there's much more too it than that but it sure as shit isn't helping people get hired. I shouldn't have to cite common sense because you're incapable of deducing obvious things yourself. 1 minute of a solid thought process, and I'm sure you could've drawn the same conclusions I have, minus all of the extraneous details that play much smaller roles and are better analyzed by people with more background in the field than either you or me have. Think for once in your life and stop asking for sources for everything, believe it or not, most successful people in life utilize common sense in their decision making processes. These successful people are the ones that are going to get the economy out of the shitter. Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is completely uncalled for, and makes this place a terrible place for debate when you sneer at the opinions of others and talk down to them in satire. I'll make you a deal, you stop being a condescending ass, and I will too ok, I'm more than happy to talk about the issues when people actually address what I bring up instead of simply assuming the worst and insulting me. If you don't want to take that route,well two can play at that game. I might suggest that the use of the term 'Obamacare' is also immediately infuriating and condescending. It's meant as a pejorative and its use immediately turns people off, and makes it difficult to hold a conversation with the opposition. I'd suggest keeping the jargon out of it when you begin the argument. It's similar to when people refer to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. I'm sure I'm guilty of it as well, and it immediately insults the other group and makes for inherently hostile discussions. Understandable and duly noted. I guess I'll just use PP + ACA as an acronym then. You're actually going to accept his premise that using the term Obamacare is as bad as using the term "Tea Baggers?" His point is that they're both stupid terms used to demean something. No one called No Child Left Behind "Bush's-idiotic-eductional-bill". It's not like Obama even drafted the bill or anything. He merely signed it, so i find the term just idiotic in nature. There's nothing inherently offensive or demeaning about the term "Obamacare" in the same way that there is something offensive and demeaning about "Tea Baggers." If democrats and liberals thought and felt that Obamacare care was both good law (they probably do) and popular with the public (they know it isn't), do you think that there would be any heartburn over the term? Nope, Obama would wear it like a badge of honor, which he ironically tried to do with his recent "Obama Cares" quip. EDIT: And let me expound upon this point a little bit. Whenever something becomes politically unpopular, the first thing that the left does is seek to change the terminology with the hope that the reason for the unpopularity is merely a marketing issue as opposed to a real disagreement on substance. There's no better example of this than the sudden switch from "global warming" to "climate change" over the past several years.
Global warming or climate change...the earth is still getting warmer lol. but that's a different debate.
|
On March 23 2012 11:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 10:41 Pillage wrote:On March 23 2012 08:16 Jibba wrote:On March 23 2012 06:12 Pillage wrote:On March 22 2012 15:26 Romantic wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 Pillage wrote:Though some indicators have shown a little improvement, Americans don't feel the improvement yet. there's still so much uncertainty in the market which makes growth relatively stagnant. Employers are waiting and holding their breath to see what happens over this election to figure out their next move, its been this way since Obamacare was passed. [Citation Needed] This is quite possibly one of the silliest, I just pulled this out of my ass and coincidentally it alligns perfectly with my political goal of getting Obama out of office economic theories I have ever seen someone unironically trying to pass off on to others. You should write about this "world economy is bad because Obama" theory and try to get a Nobel Prize. All the nations of the world has to do to shake off the financial crisis and Great Recession is to repeal Obamacare in all of their countries and unelect Obama as their president, how simple. You can't be this out of it. Just give it some thought for 10 seconds from the perspective of anyone who owns a business. Right now this country is on the brink of enacting a policy that directly impacts one of the most costly expenditures for anyone, healthcare. For many businesses, they take responsibility for the health coverage of the employees as an incentive to get competent people to work for them. Right now that mandate almost certainly depends on whether or not Obama get re-elected. That's why people are sitting on their assets, waiting to see what will happen. This is only one of the many variable of why the market is volatile right now (we're still recovering from the housing bubble) but it's big variable because healthcare is such a huge part of the budget for everyone. Posts like the one you've made really infuriate me. It seems people here would rather jump to extreme conclusions instead of thinking about what I'm trying to convey. Do I really think Obamacare is the only reason people aren't hiring? Of course not, there's much more too it than that but it sure as shit isn't helping people get hired. I shouldn't have to cite common sense because you're incapable of deducing obvious things yourself. 1 minute of a solid thought process, and I'm sure you could've drawn the same conclusions I have, minus all of the extraneous details that play much smaller roles and are better analyzed by people with more background in the field than either you or me have. Think for once in your life and stop asking for sources for everything, believe it or not, most successful people in life utilize common sense in their decision making processes. These successful people are the ones that are going to get the economy out of the shitter. Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is completely uncalled for, and makes this place a terrible place for debate when you sneer at the opinions of others and talk down to them in satire. I'll make you a deal, you stop being a condescending ass, and I will too ok, I'm more than happy to talk about the issues when people actually address what I bring up instead of simply assuming the worst and insulting me. If you don't want to take that route,well two can play at that game. I might suggest that the use of the term 'Obamacare' is also immediately infuriating and condescending. It's meant as a pejorative and its use immediately turns people off, and makes it difficult to hold a conversation with the opposition. I'd suggest keeping the jargon out of it when you begin the argument. It's similar to when people refer to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. I'm sure I'm guilty of it as well, and it immediately insults the other group and makes for inherently hostile discussions. Understandable and duly noted. I guess I'll just use PP + ACA as an acronym then. You're actually going to accept his premise that using the term Obamacare is as bad as using the term "Tea Baggers?"
Certainly not, but I'm in no mood to fight over stuff like that for the time being. I'll throw them a bone for now, even though your point still stands.
|
On March 23 2012 12:09 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 11:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2012 11:52 darthfoley wrote:On March 23 2012 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2012 10:41 Pillage wrote:On March 23 2012 08:16 Jibba wrote:On March 23 2012 06:12 Pillage wrote:On March 22 2012 15:26 Romantic wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 Pillage wrote:Though some indicators have shown a little improvement, Americans don't feel the improvement yet. there's still so much uncertainty in the market which makes growth relatively stagnant. Employers are waiting and holding their breath to see what happens over this election to figure out their next move, its been this way since Obamacare was passed. [Citation Needed] This is quite possibly one of the silliest, I just pulled this out of my ass and coincidentally it alligns perfectly with my political goal of getting Obama out of office economic theories I have ever seen someone unironically trying to pass off on to others. You should write about this "world economy is bad because Obama" theory and try to get a Nobel Prize. All the nations of the world has to do to shake off the financial crisis and Great Recession is to repeal Obamacare in all of their countries and unelect Obama as their president, how simple. You can't be this out of it. Just give it some thought for 10 seconds from the perspective of anyone who owns a business. Right now this country is on the brink of enacting a policy that directly impacts one of the most costly expenditures for anyone, healthcare. For many businesses, they take responsibility for the health coverage of the employees as an incentive to get competent people to work for them. Right now that mandate almost certainly depends on whether or not Obama get re-elected. That's why people are sitting on their assets, waiting to see what will happen. This is only one of the many variable of why the market is volatile right now (we're still recovering from the housing bubble) but it's big variable because healthcare is such a huge part of the budget for everyone. Posts like the one you've made really infuriate me. It seems people here would rather jump to extreme conclusions instead of thinking about what I'm trying to convey. Do I really think Obamacare is the only reason people aren't hiring? Of course not, there's much more too it than that but it sure as shit isn't helping people get hired. I shouldn't have to cite common sense because you're incapable of deducing obvious things yourself. 1 minute of a solid thought process, and I'm sure you could've drawn the same conclusions I have, minus all of the extraneous details that play much smaller roles and are better analyzed by people with more background in the field than either you or me have. Think for once in your life and stop asking for sources for everything, believe it or not, most successful people in life utilize common sense in their decision making processes. These successful people are the ones that are going to get the economy out of the shitter. Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is completely uncalled for, and makes this place a terrible place for debate when you sneer at the opinions of others and talk down to them in satire. I'll make you a deal, you stop being a condescending ass, and I will too ok, I'm more than happy to talk about the issues when people actually address what I bring up instead of simply assuming the worst and insulting me. If you don't want to take that route,well two can play at that game. I might suggest that the use of the term 'Obamacare' is also immediately infuriating and condescending. It's meant as a pejorative and its use immediately turns people off, and makes it difficult to hold a conversation with the opposition. I'd suggest keeping the jargon out of it when you begin the argument. It's similar to when people refer to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. I'm sure I'm guilty of it as well, and it immediately insults the other group and makes for inherently hostile discussions. Understandable and duly noted. I guess I'll just use PP + ACA as an acronym then. You're actually going to accept his premise that using the term Obamacare is as bad as using the term "Tea Baggers?" His point is that they're both stupid terms used to demean something. No one called No Child Left Behind "Bush's-idiotic-eductional-bill". It's not like Obama even drafted the bill or anything. He merely signed it, so i find the term just idiotic in nature. There's nothing inherently offensive or demeaning about the term "Obamacare" in the same way that there is something offensive and demeaning about "Tea Baggers." If democrats and liberals thought and felt that Obamacare care was both good law (they probably do) and popular with the public (they know it isn't), do you think that there would be any heartburn over the term? Nope, Obama would wear it like a badge of honor, which he ironically tried to do with his recent "Obama Cares" quip. Funny story, the article you linked earlier on the examiner had a comment #2 in likes that compared the intelligence of Obama and his "circus" to that of a "dung beetle". The point is talk like this gets us fucking nowhere. Dung beetle or obamacare. edit: Or tea baggers.
I'm not pretending that conservative rhetoric on the whole is necessarily any better than liberal rhetoric on the whole. All that I am saying is that there's nothing wrong with Obamacare as a term just as there's nothing wrong with Romneycare as a term. The fact that liberals find it offensive is simply a consequence of their own insecurity about the law.
|
You gotta give xDaunt credit for his persistence at least, even if I do feel like I'm hearing bad Limbaugh reruns 
Tea Baggers is funny to me, given it's origin. Out of touch Tea Baggers referring to themselves as Tea Baggers without even realizing what they are saying? lol.
Obamacare just sounds like short hand, it doesn't seem demeaning at all. Not sure why people hate the term.
It's not like Obama even drafted the bill or anything. He merely signed it, so i find the term just idiotic in nature.
No, he did much more than sign it, he just had Nancy Pelosi doing most of the strong-arming for him.
|
On March 23 2012 12:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 12:09 DamnCats wrote:On March 23 2012 11:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2012 11:52 darthfoley wrote:On March 23 2012 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2012 10:41 Pillage wrote:On March 23 2012 08:16 Jibba wrote:On March 23 2012 06:12 Pillage wrote:On March 22 2012 15:26 Romantic wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 Pillage wrote:
[quote]
there's still so much uncertainty in the market which makes growth relatively stagnant. Employers are waiting and holding their breath to see what happens over this election to figure out their next move, its been this way since Obamacare was passed.
[Citation Needed] This is quite possibly one of the silliest, I just pulled this out of my ass and coincidentally it alligns perfectly with my political goal of getting Obama out of office economic theories I have ever seen someone unironically trying to pass off on to others. You should write about this "world economy is bad because Obama" theory and try to get a Nobel Prize. All the nations of the world has to do to shake off the financial crisis and Great Recession is to repeal Obamacare in all of their countries and unelect Obama as their president, how simple. You can't be this out of it. Just give it some thought for 10 seconds from the perspective of anyone who owns a business. Right now this country is on the brink of enacting a policy that directly impacts one of the most costly expenditures for anyone, healthcare. For many businesses, they take responsibility for the health coverage of the employees as an incentive to get competent people to work for them. Right now that mandate almost certainly depends on whether or not Obama get re-elected. That's why people are sitting on their assets, waiting to see what will happen. This is only one of the many variable of why the market is volatile right now (we're still recovering from the housing bubble) but it's big variable because healthcare is such a huge part of the budget for everyone. Posts like the one you've made really infuriate me. It seems people here would rather jump to extreme conclusions instead of thinking about what I'm trying to convey. Do I really think Obamacare is the only reason people aren't hiring? Of course not, there's much more too it than that but it sure as shit isn't helping people get hired. I shouldn't have to cite common sense because you're incapable of deducing obvious things yourself. 1 minute of a solid thought process, and I'm sure you could've drawn the same conclusions I have, minus all of the extraneous details that play much smaller roles and are better analyzed by people with more background in the field than either you or me have. Think for once in your life and stop asking for sources for everything, believe it or not, most successful people in life utilize common sense in their decision making processes. These successful people are the ones that are going to get the economy out of the shitter. Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is completely uncalled for, and makes this place a terrible place for debate when you sneer at the opinions of others and talk down to them in satire. I'll make you a deal, you stop being a condescending ass, and I will too ok, I'm more than happy to talk about the issues when people actually address what I bring up instead of simply assuming the worst and insulting me. If you don't want to take that route,well two can play at that game. I might suggest that the use of the term 'Obamacare' is also immediately infuriating and condescending. It's meant as a pejorative and its use immediately turns people off, and makes it difficult to hold a conversation with the opposition. I'd suggest keeping the jargon out of it when you begin the argument. It's similar to when people refer to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. I'm sure I'm guilty of it as well, and it immediately insults the other group and makes for inherently hostile discussions. Understandable and duly noted. I guess I'll just use PP + ACA as an acronym then. You're actually going to accept his premise that using the term Obamacare is as bad as using the term "Tea Baggers?" His point is that they're both stupid terms used to demean something. No one called No Child Left Behind "Bush's-idiotic-eductional-bill". It's not like Obama even drafted the bill or anything. He merely signed it, so i find the term just idiotic in nature. There's nothing inherently offensive or demeaning about the term "Obamacare" in the same way that there is something offensive and demeaning about "Tea Baggers." If democrats and liberals thought and felt that Obamacare care was both good law (they probably do) and popular with the public (they know it isn't), do you think that there would be any heartburn over the term? Nope, Obama would wear it like a badge of honor, which he ironically tried to do with his recent "Obama Cares" quip. Funny story, the article you linked earlier on the examiner had a comment #2 in likes that compared the intelligence of Obama and his "circus" to that of a "dung beetle". The point is talk like this gets us fucking nowhere. Dung beetle or obamacare. edit: Or tea baggers. I'm not pretending that conservative rhetoric on the whole is necessarily any better than liberal rhetoric on the whole. All that I am saying is that there's nothing wrong with Obamacare as a term just as there's nothing wrong with Romneycare as a term. The fact that liberals find it offensive is simply a consequence of their own insecurity about the law.
Not really, i just don't see why you can't call it by the actual name of the law? An acronym isn't even that hard to remember. NDAA for example.
edit: whatever, maybe i'm nitpicking. it's late and i don't really feel like dealing with republican rhetoric. it's just a name
|
On March 23 2012 12:13 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 11:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2012 11:52 darthfoley wrote:On March 23 2012 11:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 23 2012 10:41 Pillage wrote:On March 23 2012 08:16 Jibba wrote:On March 23 2012 06:12 Pillage wrote:On March 22 2012 15:26 Romantic wrote:On March 22 2012 10:23 Pillage wrote:Though some indicators have shown a little improvement, Americans don't feel the improvement yet. there's still so much uncertainty in the market which makes growth relatively stagnant. Employers are waiting and holding their breath to see what happens over this election to figure out their next move, its been this way since Obamacare was passed. [Citation Needed] This is quite possibly one of the silliest, I just pulled this out of my ass and coincidentally it alligns perfectly with my political goal of getting Obama out of office economic theories I have ever seen someone unironically trying to pass off on to others. You should write about this "world economy is bad because Obama" theory and try to get a Nobel Prize. All the nations of the world has to do to shake off the financial crisis and Great Recession is to repeal Obamacare in all of their countries and unelect Obama as their president, how simple. You can't be this out of it. Just give it some thought for 10 seconds from the perspective of anyone who owns a business. Right now this country is on the brink of enacting a policy that directly impacts one of the most costly expenditures for anyone, healthcare. For many businesses, they take responsibility for the health coverage of the employees as an incentive to get competent people to work for them. Right now that mandate almost certainly depends on whether or not Obama get re-elected. That's why people are sitting on their assets, waiting to see what will happen. This is only one of the many variable of why the market is volatile right now (we're still recovering from the housing bubble) but it's big variable because healthcare is such a huge part of the budget for everyone. Posts like the one you've made really infuriate me. It seems people here would rather jump to extreme conclusions instead of thinking about what I'm trying to convey. Do I really think Obamacare is the only reason people aren't hiring? Of course not, there's much more too it than that but it sure as shit isn't helping people get hired. I shouldn't have to cite common sense because you're incapable of deducing obvious things yourself. 1 minute of a solid thought process, and I'm sure you could've drawn the same conclusions I have, minus all of the extraneous details that play much smaller roles and are better analyzed by people with more background in the field than either you or me have. Think for once in your life and stop asking for sources for everything, believe it or not, most successful people in life utilize common sense in their decision making processes. These successful people are the ones that are going to get the economy out of the shitter. Your condescending, holier-than-thou attitude is completely uncalled for, and makes this place a terrible place for debate when you sneer at the opinions of others and talk down to them in satire. I'll make you a deal, you stop being a condescending ass, and I will too ok, I'm more than happy to talk about the issues when people actually address what I bring up instead of simply assuming the worst and insulting me. If you don't want to take that route,well two can play at that game. I might suggest that the use of the term 'Obamacare' is also immediately infuriating and condescending. It's meant as a pejorative and its use immediately turns people off, and makes it difficult to hold a conversation with the opposition. I'd suggest keeping the jargon out of it when you begin the argument. It's similar to when people refer to the Tea Party as Tea Baggers. I'm sure I'm guilty of it as well, and it immediately insults the other group and makes for inherently hostile discussions. Understandable and duly noted. I guess I'll just use PP + ACA as an acronym then. You're actually going to accept his premise that using the term Obamacare is as bad as using the term "Tea Baggers?" His point is that they're both stupid terms used to demean something. No one called No Child Left Behind "Bush's-idiotic-eductional-bill". It's not like Obama even drafted the bill or anything. He merely signed it, so i find the term just idiotic in nature. There's nothing inherently offensive or demeaning about the term "Obamacare" in the same way that there is something offensive and demeaning about "Tea Baggers." If democrats and liberals thought and felt that Obamacare care was both good law (they probably do) and popular with the public (they know it isn't), do you think that there would be any heartburn over the term? Nope, Obama would wear it like a badge of honor, which he ironically tried to do with his recent "Obama Cares" quip. EDIT: And let me expound upon this point a little bit. Whenever something becomes politically unpopular, the first thing that the left does is seek to change the terminology with the hope that the reason for the unpopularity is merely a marketing issue as opposed to a real disagreement on substance. There's no better example of this than the sudden switch from "global warming" to "climate change" over the past several years. Global warming or climate change...the earth is still getting warmer lol. but that's a different debate.
Correct, that's what makes the change so amusing.
|
On March 23 2012 00:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 13:21 Defacer wrote:On March 22 2012 13:11 xDaunt wrote:
Believe me, I'll freely admit that the republicans are less than perfect on fiscal issues. In fact, they're often downright horrible. However, as bad as they are, they are still miles ahead of democrats who universally refuse to even make an attempt to rein in our debt problems. I can't think of a single Republican president in my lifetime that did anything to lower the debt. If you consider lip service and blowing smoke up your ass as being 'miles ahead' ... The only reasons why there were balanced budgets during the Clinton years are 1) Clinton was as moderate as they come and fairly conservatively fiscally (and he bucked his own party), 2) there was a republican congress led by fiscal hawks. But that's besides the point because it's history. Just look at the two parties as they stand now. One party has actually made numerous proposals to cut spending and put the country back on a saner fiscal track (even if those proposals don't go as far as I would like them to). The other party has offered nothing of substance on the topic other than talking about how the rich need to "pay their fair share," despite the fact that our fiscal issues are solely the result of overspending.
Isn't a lot of that 'overspending' a result of the revenue lost by Bush's tax cuts and those two wars he started?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
