President Obama Re-Elected - Page 338

On August 26 2012 14:31 naastyOne wrote:

The problem is in the give fish/learn to catch the fish department.

Instead of voting and demanding more opportunities to work better yourself and become better of, people just want somebody else to work and provide for the them, because it is easier.

The problem is, in the end, society only has as much resourses to distribute as the amount of work is done.

It is not just about the rich. Nobody wants most of their work getting sucked by the "public". Especially considering the punitive tax brackets and wellfare based on the poorness, so if you have money, you`re not ellighable for many services that you actually pay for with your taxes.

It is absolutely ridiculous at the moment.

On August 26 2012 14:31 naastyOne wrote:

The problem is in the give fish/learn to catch the fish department.

Instead of voting and demanding more opportunities to work better yourself and become better of, people just want somebody else to work and provide for the them, because it is easier.

The problem is, in the end, society only has as much resourses to distribute as the amount of work is done.

It is not just about the rich. Nobody wants most of their work getting sucked by the "public". Especially considering the punitive tax brackets and wellfare based on the poorness, so if you have money, you`re not ellighable for many services that you actually pay for with your taxes.

It is absolutely ridiculous at the moment.

On August 26 2012 08:04 Danglars wrote:
RNC is exactly the kind of insider baseball that groups like the tea party hoped to reform. Let me tell you from my dealings with the ultra corrupt California Republican Party leadership that they would like nothing better than to decide on their candidate without the aid of the primary process. Let me say it again, at the highest levels right now, it was seen preferable for the highest leadership to decide on which candidate to send in (presidential and other races) and unite the money behind him and all that. The way I see this is Romney changing the rules he sees are bad, aka leaving his impact on the Republican party now that he's their only hope. Until he gives his view why this is necessary (probably in unbroadcast portions of the convention, but will be available after), I will hold judgement on whether these changes are a good idea to stop something wrong going on, or more insider politics.

Speaking of what Obama thrives on, a documentary recently opened on him to try to explain these eccentricities. Strangely enough, even with its very limited release to theatres actually made 4th place


I've seen enough of what he seeks to do with his presidential power to not be interested in a documentary on the man, but, though its definitely a conservative release, it has been recommended to me by both democratic friends and independents. Garnering that much money from so limited a release is really surprising. Article has more.

Now about how I view Romney's team ... the way he has run his campaign. I agree with his choice of Ryan as it shows he is serious about entitlement reform. His biggest fault in my opinion is standing by his Massachusetts "Romneycare," so here's a vice presidential candidate that does more than just talk about reform. I disagreed with his pandering to all sides in the Primary campaign, continuing to alienate the conservative base and play it safe with moderates. So essentially, my vote for him in November will be yet again a vote for the guy I'm least opposed to. But I do like a successful, rich businessman that was good at making money that didn't spend the last 20 years commuting to Washington D.C. I would consider him a moderate that has conservative leanings. It'll take quite a future record to erase his past.

On August 26 2012 18:47 Defacer wrote:


People that assume that all unemployed or lower class people imust be lazy bewilder me.

Ask yourself -- Do you have a job? How did you get it? What neighborhood did you grow up in? Did your parents help you financially? Did anyone in your immediate family ever suffer a terminal illness, or need health care? Did you have aunts and uncles or other role models and mentors that helped you become successful.

I know this is hard to believe, because seriously, most people are that sheltered or live in some kind of middle-upper-class feedback loop -- but poverty is a generational problem that compounds. Someone that grows up poor has to work twice as hard to get the same job someone in middle-upper class typically does.

I don't think anyone is asking for a 'hand-out', but when a candidate proposing putting medicaid on vouchers, repealing Obamacare, cutting pell-grants, and cutting the tax cut on mortgage interest, you're just making it harder and harder for poor people to ascend, and easier and easier for the middle class to descend, regardless of how hard they work. And that's horrible for the economy.

On August 26 2012 16:19 aksfjh wrote:
Even the GOP wants him to be a push over. I can't remember who said it, but some guy was talking about the next party leader probably coming from the House, and Romney should just basically be their free-pass to make whatever laws they want.

On August 27 2012 03:12 Gahlo wrote:

I don't know about you, but I'm forced to buy car insurance. The only way that Obamacare forces you to pay more is if you don't have health insurance and are buying it now, or are making a conscious choice not to. Only the second is a tax, and I honestly fail to empathize on it.

On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:


Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing.

On August 27 2012 03:20 DoubleReed wrote:


There are people that cannot afford health insurance.

1. Why do states "clearly" have the power to coerce private people into buying things?
2. Saying that people can just move away is a false choice, though. First of all, that's just as true with the federal government as it is with state government, but also it's not unrealistic to find all states doing things that you don't like.

On August 27 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote:


1. Police powers are reserved to the states.

2. Are you really going to argue that immigrating to another country is just as easy as moving between states in the US? C'mon man.

On August 27 2012 03:35 DoubleReed wrote:


1. Police powers means that you can force people to buy things from private corporations??? That seems like a massive stretch.

2. I don't need to argue that. You're the one arguing that it's remarkably easy for people to just get up and move from state to state. But that's not really an argument against it being a false choice. I mean, if every state required auto insurance for instance (I don't know if that's true), you don't get a choice no matter what state you move to. It's a false choice.

On August 27 2012 03:37 xDaunt wrote:


1. That's exactly what it means, and that's exactly what states do (like auto insurance).

2. Obviously there are limits to the ability to move if every state is doing something. However, there are real differences between the states and people move from state to state all of the time in pursuit of their own personal preferences.

On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:


Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing.

On August 27 2012 03:50 DoubleReed wrote:


Seriously, xDaunt. Elaborate. Don't just throw crap out there.

I'm not saying states do not have the power, but explain how you get "States can force people to purchase from private companies" from "Police Powers." I do not follow. Actually explain. Don't just say "That's obvious" or "That's what it means." Jesus.

On August 27 2012 03:15 xDaunt wrote:


Only morons run around without health insurance, but that's not the issue. The idea that the federal government can coerce private persons into buying things is the issue. I don't mind states doing it because 1) it clearly falls within their powers, and 2) people can just move away if they don't like what their state is doing.

On August 27 2012 01:33 coverpunch wrote:

You can't carry that to the other extreme though. Your questions and implications about the middle-upper class are a little too dismissive of the effort and talent that it takes for them to create and maintain their intergenerational success. Sure, I grew up in a middle-upper class suburb, but that doesn't mean I didn't work hard, as hard or harder than people who are less successful or come from impoverished backgrounds.

For example, take Koreans vs foreigners in StarCraft. Sure, Korea has better infrastructure and a more accepting society of pro-gamers to develop their talent, but it's unfair to say foreigners have to work twice as hard as Koreans to be successful and imply that means Koreans don't have to work very hard. I don't subscribe at all to the idea that foreigners are lazy, but if we agree Korea has a culture that allows pro-gamers to devote their full effort and foreigners don't have that but should, you're talking about a much more difficult problem and it's not something that can be bought.

However, I will agree that it is against society's interest for the government to create a system that reinforces and cements legacies, so that people from a wealthier background have an insurmountable advantage over the poor. We've gone through Romney's policies and debated their effect on the poor, but I think it speaks volumes that you don't write anything in support of Obama. Has Obama done a lot to improve the plight of the poor? I don't think so.

In fact, both Romney and Obama have the same basic goal for improving the situation, which is economic growth. Everyone recognizes that these tools we want to give to the poor to ascend are luxuries of a successful and growing economy. When Google talks about providing free Wi-fi to everyone in the San Francisco Bay Area, they can afford to do that because they're highly profitable. If RIM talked about giving away phones for charity, we'd laugh in their face. They're unprofitable and running out of cash quickly, are you crazy?

So what you're groping toward is which candidate's policies is more likely to spur growth while not giving away hand-outs and not cementing legacies. That's...not easy.

On August 27 2012 06:12 xDaunt wrote:

The police power is the general power to regulate individual behavior. The states are only limited by the Bill of Rights in exercising this power. I can't really make it any simpler than that. It is an elementary rule of Constitutional law.

On August 27 2012 06:12 xDaunt wrote:

The police power is the general power to regulate individual behavior. The states are only limited by the Bill of Rights in exercising this power. I can't really make it any simpler than that. It is an elementary rule of Constitutional law.