This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office.
I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president.
I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events...
- Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime)
So unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had.
Get informed.
And he still found the time to hate homosexuals and cause the massacre of innocent Guatemalans. At least he defeated those evil Soveits tho
Thanks for contributing intelligent, thought provoking information to this discussion. I'm not even going to bother to address this as it was probably written by a four year old.
On September 14 2011 00:19 Liudo wrote: There's really that many people here who support Bachmann? Scary.
My guess is 90% of those votes are from people who know that if Bachmann becomes the Republican candidate, then Obama is practically guaranteed a win, because the only people insane enough to actually vote for her are by-and-large Tea Partiers, and she needs more supporters than that to win in the general election.
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.
Bush was good at doing what the people wanted. People agreed with it at the time. O and ask any psychologist about the christian thing.
AS someone who works for UPS and benefits directly from our expansive healthcare, I'm very very VERY scared of Obamacare :[
Care to elaborate?
Supposedly I'll be paying FICA(payroll tax for medicare/ss in case you didn't know), which is normal, and my healthcare provided by UPS right now is 'free'. Under the Obamacare regulations supposedly by 2017/8 the company would be passing on 'additional costs as a result of the bill(read: double taxing us), we're going to essentially be penalized for having some sort of high cost expansive private insurance plans.
I haven't read through it all yet, but I know its Obamacare is going to be bad for anyone who has company provided healthcare in the future. I think it may be excise tax, something like 40% I'm unsure as to the exact numbers.
Bush was good at doing what the people wanted. People agreed with it at the time. O and ask any psychologist about the christian thing.
Hi. Your turn to stop this drivel, if you can't prepare a fact-driven rational argument just don't post. You should like... write it all out, hit preview, admire it, and then close the tab.
This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office.
I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president.
I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events...
- Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime)
So unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had.
Get informed.
And he still found the time to hate homosexuals and cause the massacre of innocent Guatemalans. At least he defeated those evil Soveits tho
Thanks for contributing intelligent, thought provoking information to this discussion. I'm not even going to bother to address this as it was probably written by a four year old.
Intelligent discussion?
You mean the one where Reagan overturned the arms embargo administered by Carter to the repressive Guatemalan regime in the 1980s? Which resulted in the sales of millions of dollars worth of military equipment during the beginning of the 80s? In 1981, the United States ambassador to Guatemala even met with leaders who claimed that they would continue with the repression regardless of their actions.
"But the Reagan administration was set on whitewashing the ugly scene. A State Department "white paper," released in December 1981, blamed the violence on leftist "extremist groups" and their "terrorist methods," inspired and supported by Cuba's Fidel Castro. "
It's alright to massacre innocent people as long as their are dirty, commie, leftists right?
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.
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.
You're so wrong it's astounding.
Reaganomics were so full of shit it's not even funny. BTW, Reagan increased taxes when he was in office. Surprise!
The housing bubble? Yeah, that's a result of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Yes, Clinton did sign it, but it was also passed under a Republican congress. And again, we had a surplus under Clinton as a direct result of his policies. Don't make shit up. And yeah, to get out of a hole, you need to promote economic growth. Economic growth only occurs in times of increased demand for consumption. Increased demand for consumption only occurs when people have more disposable income. In other words, the only way to promote economic growth is to make sure people have more money to spend, which is what the stimulus bill did. And according to a number of institutions (including the Princeton Review), the stimulus was a great idea that wasn't big enough to work because it got cut down repeatedly due to demands from the Republicans in congress, because Obama wanted to compromise and work with them instead of telling them to go fuck themselves.
BTW, Obamacare? Yeah, another word made up by Republicans to make it sound like something really bad and dangerous. Surprise surprise, it's actually amazingly good for insurance companies, and it's not at all a liberal policy.
Get your shit together.
the second half of Reagan's presidency wasn't as good as his first I agree.
of course there was surplus during Clinton that was the bubble growing.
Stimulus doesn't fucking work, how can it. You're taking money from people and giving it back to them but less of it.
The economy doesn't grow from increased consumption... Consuming more than producing leads to debt... What people need to start doing is consuming less than we're producing, then export our excess, pay off our debt, then save real capital, and then invest that money so that we can produce more... There needs to be a recession because continuously giving people money to buy shit doesn't improve our economy, because buying shit doesn't increase the total number of shit to go around it simply redistributes it, and continues to send false signals to business that consumers can still afford more.
health care bill is longer to type than obama care, and it's terrible either way.
It's called the money multiplier. Person A is given $100 from the government. Government spending? $100. He then turns around and saves $20, but spends $80 of it. Person B gets that $80 now has $80 to spend. He saves 20% of it like person A, and now spends $64 of it. Person C gets $64 and saves 20%, spending the rest. $51.2 goes to person D who then spends some. End result? The government spent $100, net gain in production and consumption is MUCH HIGHER. This spending is also taxed, so the government gets some of it back.
The two reasons why the stimulus bill didn't work are as follows: One, the stimulus bill wasn't big enough, they underestimated people's tendency to save money rather than spend, and it needed to be larger. To be fair, Obama's original plan was much bigger, but it was cut down in size drastically in compromise with the Republicans. Secondly, a lot of the jobs it did create went overseas because nobody seems to be interested in making the companies doing business in America hire Americans. This is the biggest problem with our economy right now, all the money goes out of country, and unemployment is high because companies find cheaper labor elsewhere. We need to do something about THIS, but it's not high on anybodies agenda.
To be honest, I don't much like Obama either, but it's important to give credit where credit is due and not make stuff up.
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.
Bush was good at doing what the people wanted. People agreed with it at the time. O and ask any psychologist about the christian thing.
On September 13 2011 19:51 Zergneedsfood wrote: @xDaunt
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.
There are a lot of conservatives who still refuse to refer to themselves as republicans due to their general disillusionment with the republican party stemming from Bush's term and then the nomination of McCain. In fact, there was a lot of talk about a third party forming because the republican establishment was so rotten. This talk more or less peaked before the genesis of the tea party movement and subsided as the tea party began taking over the republican party. Aside from democrats, the other really big losers in 2010 were establishment republicans, who were voted out of office en masse and replaced by tea party candidates. In fact, the only people who may despise the tea party movement more than liberals are establishment, moderate republicans (See McCain's comments a while ago about "hobbits").
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.
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".
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?
I want to apologize. I misread your post early in the morning. I thought you were making the common conservative argument that people create their own health problems and should be responsible.
However, I disagree with you that charity is in anyway a substitute for government welfare. If your family and friends are also facing difficulties, they're not going to be able to help you out. And if the charities are facing difficulties with their donations (which happens in recessions), then they're not going to be able to pay for your hospital expenses. And there's no reason why a bank would someone give a loan to cover a health procedure. That's a horribly retarded argument. A bank loan isn't automatic.
I'm going to cite one example of where the the private insurance system completely failed and was cannibalized by a socialized system. The fire fighting services didn't start out as socialized systems. There were previous private fire halls. But there were several issues that made it a disaster. people made short sighted decisions to save money. And even if I was personally responsible for my own house, I couldn't guarantee that my neighbour was responsible for his own house. Fires don't happen to respect property lines. Lastly, even if I did pay for private fire fighting protection, there was no guarantee I would receive it under the private system. The private fire fighting systems would carry someone to verify that the property was insured. Sometimes that would be difficult as the house number was burning. The private systems didn't have the goal of saving lives and they could never operate with that goal in mind.
Goodbye, Bachmann. It was nice knowing you as a contender.
After piling on Texas Gov. Rick Perry in last night’s presidential debate, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is continuing to attack the 2012 frontrunner for mandating that young girls get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
Perry has apologized for the mandate, saying it was a mistake. One of his former top aides had gone on to become a lobbyist for vaccine-maker Merck & Co. and pushed the governor for an executive order.
Social conservatives argue that the vaccine, which protects against a sexually-transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer, encourages promiscuity. Perry’s decision has already riled up conservative activists; it might be Bachmann’s best hope to win back those voters.
Post-debate, the Minnesota congresswoman sent out a fundraising appeal on the issue with the title “I’m Offended.” In interviews after the debate, she suggested that the vaccine could do permanent damage.
“There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine,” Bachmann said on Fox News. “She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences.”
Bachmann repeated the allegation on the “Today Show” this morning, adding, “It’s very clear that crony capitalism could have likely been the cause, because the governor's former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company.”
What a stupid, inane, and bottom-feeding comment. Good riddance.
EDIT: And just to clarify, it's an absolute tragedy that the girl had an adverse reaction to the vaccine. However, there's a very small risk of adverse reaction with any vaccine, and that risk is greatly outweighed by the benefits of vaccinations. What I find offensive is that Bachmann would use this one tragedy to keep hammering Perry on this HPV thing.
After piling on Texas Gov. Rick Perry in last night’s presidential debate, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is continuing to attack the 2012 frontrunner for mandating that young girls get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
Perry has apologized for the mandate, saying it was a mistake. One of his former top aides had gone on to become a lobbyist for vaccine-maker Merck & Co. and pushed the governor for an executive order.
Social conservatives argue that the vaccine, which protects against a sexually-transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer, encourages promiscuity. Perry’s decision has already riled up conservative activists; it might be Bachmann’s best hope to win back those voters.
Post-debate, the Minnesota congresswoman sent out a fundraising appeal on the issue with the title “I’m Offended.” In interviews after the debate, she suggested that the vaccine could do permanent damage.
“There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine,” Bachmann said on Fox News. “She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences.”
Bachmann repeated the allegation on the “Today Show” this morning, adding, “It’s very clear that crony capitalism could have likely been the cause, because the governor's former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company.”
What a stupid, inane, and bottom-feeding comment. Good riddance.
EDIT: And just to clarify, it's an absolute tragedy that the girl had an adverse reaction to the vaccine. However, there's a very small risk of adverse reaction with any vaccine, and that risk is greatly outweighed by the benefits of vaccinations. What I find offensive is that Bachmann would use this one tragedy to keep hammering Perry on this HPV thing.
That woman is a cancer on this country, spreading such blatant lies. It doesn't even matter if its not true. None of the republican supports who believe that bullshit are going to trust the CDC, a government agency, telling them that the vaccine does not cause mental problems (i.e. that she's lying through her teeth). So, all Perry can do in retaliation is admit it was 'a mistake', rather than push back with factual evidence. So frustrating to watch this cycle of stupidity continue because Republican candidates are terrified of losing their base.
Hi. Your turn to stop this drivel, if you can't prepare a fact-driven rational argument just don't post. You should like... write it all out, hit preview, admire it, and then close the tab.
Your pastor is not a qualified psychologist.
Here you go trolls. I know that you've probably never even had a college class, but that's OK. Here's a very recent textbook that you can read and then you might actually learn something!
Should we pick puppet number one or puppet number two? Gee I don't know. I guess ultimately it doesn't matter at all. Facing reality is too much however, so let's keep on pretending red is red and blue is blue, that all is true and things look good.
I must give it to you though, from republican nominations to psychology and pastors, you've done it again.
What a stupid, inane, and bottom-feeding comment. Good riddance.
EDIT: And just to clarify, it's an absolute tragedy that the girl had an adverse reaction to the vaccine. However, there's a very small risk of adverse reaction with any vaccine, and that risk is greatly outweighed by the benefits of vaccinations. What I find offensive is that Bachmann would use this one tragedy to keep hammering Perry on this HPV thing.
Additionally, is there even proof that the vaccine did in fact cause the girl's mental disability?
For example, with autism the symptoms usually start showing up around the age of 3. Some parents blame this on a vaccination that happened before that age, even though the CDC and numerous medical journals have published clinical studies finding no link between the two.
It's possible that the mother is simply looking for something to blame -- quite understandable of course. But that is a reason why it could be dangerous for a candidate who is willfully ignorant of science and pretty gullible to become president.
Should we pick puppet number one or puppet number two? Gee I don't know. I guess ultimately it doesn't matter at all. Facing reality is too much however, so let's keep on pretending red is red and blue is blue, that all is true and things look good.
I must give it to you though, from republican nominations to psychology and pastors, you've done it again.
I'm sorry if you can't read. Must be you were selling drugs as a child instead of being in school as you are from Mexico.
On September 14 2011 02:24 Suvorov wrote: Should we pick puppet number one or puppet number two? Gee I don't know. I guess ultimately it doesn't matter at all. Facing reality is too much however, so let's keep on pretending red is red and blue is blue, that all is true and things look good.
I must give it to you though, from republican nominations to psychology and pastors, you've done it again.
fwiw, I've read studies by the APA suggesting that religious people live longer. They concluded that churches provide a social support group, which contributes to positive health outcomes.
EPT
