EPTRepublican nominations - Page 83
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dulak
Finland33 Posts
| ||
|
lizzard_warish
589 Posts
On September 13 2011 13:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Except when Clinton had a repub majority in the house he actively changed his policies, and Obama just whined that people who didnt agree with him...didnt do as he wanted.Do you think Clinton was a leftist, that question goes out to anybody and if the answer is yes then I simply point out he had Republican controlled houses, Newt Gingrich of all people, that worked with him. Look what the results were, across the board good with the bad and wonder what Obama would/could have done if it wasn't for all the Republican filibustering and delay tactics. | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:02 Sufficiency wrote: I don't see how his response was bad. He is libertarian, and what he said sounded like what a libertarian would say. When ideological purity is considered more important than saving lives, you know that the society is well and truly fucked. At this rate, there will be little difference between the US and China in a decade or so. Wealth rules! I've got mine, fuck you! Nationalistic jingoism and flag waving and greatest country/people in the world... while you know, lagging behind everyone else but propaganda says otherwise. | ||
|
Condor
Netherlands188 Posts
 | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On September 13 2011 15:56 lizzard_warish wrote: Except when Clinton had a repub majority in the house he actively changed his policies, and Obama just whined that people who didnt agree with him...didnt do as he wanted. Er, uh... he was referring to the two years that Democrats had the majority in both houses but 41 Senators shut down the legislative agenda entirely. Obama compromised a ton in that time (much to the dismay of liberals) to chase after Republican votes, which were never going to be forthcoming of course. So we end up with useless watered down financial reform and health care reform bills, among some other bills that had to be inexplicably fought over like expanding unemployment benefits after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and that 9/11 first responders bill fiasco. I'm not interested in rehashing every legislative battle that happened, and you can argue that they were standing on principle or something, but to look at that whole situation and ignore unprecedented Republican obstructionism while accusing Obama of not compromising is not reasonable. Along that line, I don't think the filibuster should exist at all, no matter which party is in control. 2009-2010 shows how destructive 41 senators can be. It shouldn't be a valid political maneuver to stop government from functioning while simultaneously pointing at the party in control and shouting "look! they can't get anything done!" Again, that's not political at all. No party should be able to do that. A simple majority should rule, and I say the same thing for California legislature where the 2/3 rule has been an utter disaster for us. Edit: don't I remember Clinton calling their bluff on the government shut down or something? I could use a reminder, but I know he didn't play nice all the time. He was a smart and pragmatic guy, though, and so was Gingrich to an extent. I still disagree with a ton of what Clinton did but he was a slick fella. On Gingrich, I do think he's pretty smart, and definitely pragmatic. But I would still say Ron Paul is the smartest guy on the stage. Nobody else can survive a serious debate with him, but this world of sound bytes doesn't help him much in that regard. Whether or not you agree with his ideas, he's just much smarter than his competition up there. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On September 13 2011 12:38 Pillage wrote: Entitlement and welfare IS the biggest problem our country faces fiscally, as I've demonstrated in my previous posts. Democrats refuse to address these issues, which is why they do not have my support. True, but when you look at who has a larger incentive to minimize waste, its the private sector by a long shot. This we can agree on. I think Obamacare was a huge reform of Medicare, so, yes they did address these issues. Now, of course, whether or not it was a GOOD tackle of Medicare reform is entirely different. (And Republicans have no answer other than to cut spending without giving any specifics) I think that the individual mandate is questionable and there should be serious consideration as to whether or not it is constitutional or not. But things such as eliminating discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, switching health records to electronic filing...I think those parts of Obama's reform were pretty well sounding and decent. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
I agree with most of your analysis on the presidential candidates and their performance. I still can't believe that out of the people available, I like Mitt Romney the most. I'm actually curious, are there those who have stopped calling themselves Republicans but instead just call themselves conservatives? A friend of mine who has been a Republican for the last few years just did that last night. His shame of his party basically made him switch. Edit: My only disagreement is that Obama is toast. I don't think he is. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On September 13 2011 16:48 hummingbird23 wrote: When ideological purity is considered more important than saving lives, you know that the society is well and truly fucked. At this rate, there will be little difference between the US and China in a decade or so. Wealth rules! I've got mine, fuck you! Nationalistic jingoism and flag waving and greatest country/people in the world... while you know, lagging behind everyone else but propaganda says otherwise. this is fucking retarded. ron paul is so correct. if you don't have health insurance but yet you're making a healthy living, then you should have some kind of personal savings to afford the healthcare out of pocket, or be able to borrow it with interest, or rely on friends/family to help you out, that's all there is to it. it's not the society's job to hedge risks of personal irresponsibility, this line of thought brings us to a very morally hazzardous place. also note that if the healthcare system is driven by an actual free market then healthcare wouldn't be so fucking expensive. | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On September 13 2011 21:24 Kiarip wrote: this is fucking retarded. ron paul is so correct. if you don't have health insurance but yet you're making a healthy living, then you should have some kind of personal savings to afford the healthcare out of pocket, or be able to borrow it with interest, or rely on friends/family to help you out, that's all there is to it. it's not the society's job to hedge risks of personal irresponsibility, this line of thought brings us to a very morally hazzardous place. also note that if the healthcare system is driven by an actual free market then healthcare wouldn't be so fucking expensive. I think it's undoubtedly true that in general people should save for rainy days. In my opinion, though, I don't think that the consequence of being ill prepared for something like a tragic accident (honestly, do we remotely think about getting hit by a car every day?) should be that you have to pay or you die. :/ I also don't think it's moral hazard either because no one wants to put themselves in a position to "die". There's a difference between knowing you'll be saved if you go bankrupt (and therefore will take financial risks every so often) and knowing you'll be saved if you're on the verge of the death. The very threat of death is one that deters most people. Also, we've had private insurance trying to insure people for years in a market that's basically been not very well regulated. Government insurance did very little to tamper with private insurance companies....and yet prices are still high. That to me tells me that some structural reform is necessary other than just "oh free markets are best". | ||
|
DetriusXii
Canada156 Posts
On September 13 2011 21:24 Kiarip wrote: this is fucking retarded. ron paul is so correct. if you don't have health insurance but yet you're making a healthy living, then you should have some kind of personal savings to afford the healthcare out of pocket, or be able to borrow it with interest, or rely on friends/family to help you out, that's all there is to it. it's not the society's job to hedge risks of personal irresponsibility, this line of thought brings us to a very morally hazzardous place. also note that if the healthcare system is driven by an actual free market then healthcare wouldn't be so fucking expensive. I agree that Steve Jobs was responsible for his cancer. He shouldn't have led such a risky lifestyle. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On September 13 2011 21:32 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think it's undoubtedly true that in general people should save for rainy days. In my opinion, though, I don't think that the consequence of being ill prepared for something like a tragic accident (honestly, do we remotely think about getting hit by a car every day?) should be that you have to pay or you die. :/ I also don't think it's moral hazard either because no one wants to put themselves in a position to "die". There's a difference between knowing you'll be saved if you go bankrupt (and therefore will take financial risks every so often) and knowing you'll be saved if you're on the verge of the death. The very threat of death is one that deters most people. Also, we've had private insurance trying to insure people for years in a market that's basically been not very well regulated. Government insurance did very little to tamper with private insurance companies....and yet prices are still high. That to me tells me that some structural reform is necessary other than just "oh free markets are best". there are still options of how you can receive treatment even if you don't have the money, but if you have the savements, and don't have insurance, then like you said, you either pay or you die... I don't see what's wrong with that when saving people's lives actually costs money. if you don't have the money there are charities, people willing to loan you money, and friends and family who could possibly help you out. I agree that Steve Jobs was responsible for his cancer. He shouldn't have led such a risky lifestyle. Wow are you that dumb? of course it's not his fault he got cancer, but if like in that question that was asked of Ron Paul someone makes a comfortable living and doesn't have health insurance and doesn't have personal savings just in case something happens then it's his fault and he's being irresponsible. what if he doesn't have his house insured, and a lightning hits it, and it burns down? is the government supposed to give him a new home? | ||
|
SySLeif
United States123 Posts
Perry is at 39% to win the Republican nomination on In Trade. Next is Romney on 32%. Seems like another religious fruitloop, who believes in intelligent design, wants to execute lots of criminals, believes Israel was given by God to the chosen people, prays for rain, doesn’t believe in climate change. Religious fruitloop? Religious people live longer, more happy and fullfilling lives. Also most of the greatest men of all time were religious. If your referring to another as in another "Bush" then I would rather see another Bush than any democrat. I would rather keep my freedoms than have them taken from the government. America is to diverse to have a single set of rules an laws for everyone, hence more power should be dispersed into more local communities. Now why was Bush a bad president? When the democrats took over in 2006 (House and Senate) unemployment was still just above 5%? It took Barack Obama 2 years to make the debt that Bush did in 8. Even though we had 9/11 he still stood strong when he said we were going to war. It takes a man to do that, and he did it with 70% of Americans behind him. Also Bush had to cleanup a huge mess Clinton left behind... You know the mess where "O well nobody should be discriminated against during a loan application on how much they make a year." And now America is in a debt recession where most of the country is paying debts instead of buying things with their money earned. Stop trolling the republicans and get on with your life. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On September 13 2011 22:49 SySLeif wrote: Religious fruitloop? Religious people live longer, more happy and fullfilling lives. Also most of the greatest men of all time were religious. If your referring to another as in another "Bush" then I would rather see another Bush than any democrat. I would rather keep my freedoms than have them taken from the government. America is to diverse to have a single set of rules an laws for everyone, hence more power should be dispersed into more local communities. Now why was Bush a bad president? When the democrats took over in 2006 (House and Senate) unemployment was still just above 5%? It took Barack Obama 2 years to make the debt that Bush did in 8. Even though we had 9/11 he still stood strong when he said we were going to war. It takes a man to do that, and he did it with 70% of Americans behind him. Also Bush had to cleanup a huge mess Clinton left behind... You know the mess where "O well nobody should be discriminated against during a loan application on how much they make a year." And now America is in a debt recession where most of the country is paying debts instead of buying things with their money earned. Stop trolling the republicans and get on with your life. both perry and romney are terrible | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On September 13 2011 22:49 SySLeif wrote: Religious fruitloop? Religious people live longer, more happy and fullfilling lives. Also most of the greatest men of all time were religious. If your referring to another as in another "Bush" then I would rather see another Bush than any democrat. I would rather keep my freedoms than have them taken from the government. America is to diverse to have a single set of rules an laws for everyone, hence more power should be dispersed into more local communities. Now why was Bush a bad president? When the democrats took over in 2006 (House and Senate) unemployment was still just above 5%? It took Barack Obama 2 years to make the debt that Bush did in 8. Even though we had 9/11 he still stood strong when he said we were going to war. It takes a man to do that, and he did it with 70% of Americans behind him. Also Bush had to cleanup a huge mess Clinton left behind... You know the mess where "O well nobody should be discriminated against during a loan application on how much they make a year." And now America is in a debt recession where most of the country is paying debts instead of buying things with their money earned. Stop trolling the republicans and get on with your life. Where the hell did you get that factoid from? Oh, and the majority of the greatest men of all time were religious because historically, most people were religious due to a lack of knowledge and scientific understanding. Now that we're in the goddamn 21st century, you'd think we could move past superstition already. At the very least, our leaders should have an idea of how the universe actually works. Uh... Bush was huge on taking people's freedoms away, or did you not pay attention? Patriot act ring a bell? Wire-tapping? And yeah, if only those people who got SUB-PRIME loans hadn't been lied too and tricked by unregulated banks we wouldn't be in this mess. Stop being ignorant. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10844 Posts
On September 13 2011 21:24 Kiarip wrote: also note that if the healthcare system is driven by an actual free market then healthcare wouldn't be so fucking expensive. LOL Tell people that get Ill that the free market just fucked them in the ass... Or how do you want the "free market" to work? Free market in health care means: People with serious illness that are not rich (REALLY RICH) DIE. | ||
|
Bungle
Canada59 Posts
On September 13 2011 22:49 SySLeif wrote: Religious fruitloop? Religious people live longer, more happy and fullfilling lives. Also most of the greatest men of all time were religious. According to whom? If your referring to another as in another "Bush" then I would rather see another Bush than any democrat. I would rather keep my freedoms than have them taken from the government. America is to diverse to have a single set of rules an laws for everyone, hence more power should be dispersed into more local communities. Yeah, the Patriot Act was a monumental win in the battle for freedom... Sigh Now why was Bush a bad president? When the democrats took over in 2006 (House and Senate) unemployment was still just above 5%? Thank the housing bubble for that one, and how was Bush a bad president? Can you seriously ask that question with a straight face? It took Barack Obama 2 years to make the debt that Bush did in 8. Amazing to think that in some cases you actually have to spend money to dig yourself out of a hole - why is this so tough to comprehend? Also since you seem to love the Rove kool-aid: "deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney. Even though we had 9/11 he still stood strong when he said we were going to war. It takes a man to do that, and he did it with 70% of Americans behind him. It takes a real 'man' to go awol during your national guard tenure. It takes a real man to paint your opponent (a true war hero in John Kerry) as a liberal pussy as well. Probably 70% of the world was behind the U.S. after 9/11 - nobody had any problem with Afghanistan, Iraq was the issue. While you and your ilk sat there flag waving and fist pumping about some imaginary weapons of mass destruction (forget the fact that they even tried to tie in an Al-Qaeda link first) the rest of the world was face-palming. Also Bush had to cleanup a huge mess Clinton left behind... You know the mess where "O well nobody should be discriminated against during a loan application on how much they make a year." Yeah, thank god Bush figured away to get rid of that huge budget surplus. And now America is in a debt recession where most of the country is paying debts instead of buying things with their money earned. Oh Jesus, you think this is something new? This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. You can thank him for putting in the policies that slowly started to flush your country down the shitter. Stop trolling the republicans and get on with your life. Get informed. | ||
|
jace32
33 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On September 13 2011 23:21 Velr wrote: LOL Tell people that get Ill that the free market just fucked them in the ass... Or how do you want the "free market" to work? Free market in health care means: People with serious illness that are not rich (REALLY RICH) DIE. you're so friggin dumb. use your head. Medical care is something that has a limited demand per person. there's a lot less rich people than poor people, if only rich people could afford medical care from company #1 for instance, then company #2 that would provide medical care to a much larger population for less money would drive company #1 out of business. Please leave your unbased socialist biases outside when you decide to post in this thread. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On September 13 2011 23:21 Bungle wrote: According to whom? Yeah, the Patriot Act was a monumental win in the battle for freedom... Sigh Thank the housing bubble for that one, and how was Bush a bad president? Can you seriously ask that question with a straight face? Amazing to think that in some cases you actually have to spend money to dig yourself out of a hole - why is this so tough to comprehend? Also since you seem to love the Rove kool-aid: "deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney. It takes a real 'man' to go awol during your national guard tenure. It takes a real man to paint your opponent (a true war hero in John Kerry) as a liberal pussy as well. Probably 70% of the world was behind the U.S. after 9/11 - nobody had any problem with Afghanistan, Iraq was the issue. While you and your ilk sat there flag waving and fist pumping about some imaginary weapons of mass destruction (forget the fact that they even tried to tie in an Al-Qaeda link first) the rest of the world was face-palming. Yeah, thank god Bush figured away to get rid of that huge budget surplus. Oh Jesus, you think this is something new? This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. You can thank him for putting in the policies that slowly started to flush your country down the shitter. Get informed. Reagan was one of the best presidents of the modern times economically. FDR and Carter were some of the worst. Clinton's policies were a major cause in the housing bubble. Bush did over-spend on military, and he tried to stop the bubble from bursting with bad monetary policy so he could get reelected, which made it bigger, but Clinton is the one who helped start it. He wasn't at all a great president economically. and no, you don't need to spend money to get out of the hole. The hole is that we're spending too much money. Stimulus doesn't work at all even on a theoretical level, and Obama continues to push for more. and spending money on Obamacare isn't a way to get out of this hole ever. you're the one who needs to get informed. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On September 13 2011 23:39 Kiarip wrote: you're so friggin dumb. use your head. Medical care is something that has a limited demand per person. there's a lot less rich people than poor people, if only rich people could afford medical care from company #1 for instance, then company #2 that would provide medical care to a much larger population for less money would drive company #1 out of business. Please leave your unbased socialist biases outside when you decide to post in this thread. It doesn't work at all. Sure, some people get their goods, but you're working under the mistaken assumption that A: companies will find their profit maximizing point at supplying to everyone (or nearly everyone). It may be that they make more money by only supplying health care to half the country. B: companies won't monopolize and get in the way of other companies attempting to help out. C: even if other companies step in and even if it's not too much money, some people simply will not be able to afford it. Should those people be doomed just because they aren't wealthy? And I still don't for the life of me understand why socialism is still a dirty word in this country. Just what, precisely, is wrong with the idea of helping out those who need help and can't help themselves? We're not exactly preaching putting everyone on the same income level here. | ||
| ||
