|
|
On September 05 2012 10:28 farvacola wrote:He has worked previously for the Obama administration so this should be no surprise.
A guy famous for a character that (illegally) smokes marijuana and another who kills himself for no clear reason. I'd have to think a long time to think of someone more appropriate. Come to think of Eastwood is mostly know for taking out bad guys so I guess both did equally well on choosing their icons this year.
|
On September 05 2012 10:38 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 10:28 farvacola wrote:On September 05 2012 10:27 a176 wrote:
wut, dnc brought out kumar He has worked previously for the Obama administration so this should be no surprise. A guy famous for a character that (illegally) smokes marijuana and another who kills himself for no clear reason. I'd have to think a long time to think of someone more appropriate. Come to think of Eastwood is mostly know for taking out bad guys so I guess both did equally well on choosing their icons this year.
Wrong. Eastwood is now mostly known for talking to a chair.
|
On September 05 2012 10:34 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On September 05 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:
Ted Strickland. "If Romney was Santa Claus, he'd fire the reindeer and outsource the elves."
Those are some pretty messed up rules the insurance companies had for women. Which rules are you referring to? I can't remember them all as it's a couple speakers back. Something like charging 50% more for women for the same coverage. And then denying coverage anyways.
And was there any analysis in that claim at all? Do you have any facts or figures on the cost and frequency of women's health care compared to that for men? I haven't been to a doctor in over a decade. What is the direct medical financial burden of a new father?
Believe it or not, insurance rates weren't an evil plot by greedy men to take the moneyz from women. If Democrats took over car insurance the same way it'd be like forcing owners of 89 Honda Accords to pay the same amount as owners of 2012 Porsche convertibles.
|
On September 05 2012 10:43 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 10:34 Falling wrote:On September 05 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On September 05 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:
Ted Strickland. "If Romney was Santa Claus, he'd fire the reindeer and outsource the elves."
Those are some pretty messed up rules the insurance companies had for women. Which rules are you referring to? I can't remember them all as it's a couple speakers back. Something like charging 50% more for women for the same coverage. And then denying coverage anyways. And was there any analysis in that claim at all? Do you have any facts or figures on the cost and frequency of women's health care compared to that for men? I haven't been to a doctor in over a decade. What is the direct medical financial burden of a new father? Believe it or not, insurance rates weren't an evil plot by greedy men to take the moneyz from women. If Democrats took over car insurance the same way it'd be like forcing owners of 89 Honda Accords to pay the same amount as owners of 2012 Porsche convertibles.
If you could just refrain from gratuitous jabs at your opponents, your posts might be taken a bit more seriously.
It's fairly simple - insurance companies believe women cost more to insure. In a sense, this can be true, if they take into account potential risk factors such as pregnancy. Whether or not this is a fair practice, and whether or not it should be banned, is another question altogether. I think it's fairly plausible that they did this - it's similar to "pre-existing conditions", except in this case the pre-existing condition referred to is being a woman. Companies are in it for the money, and as such, they want to insure people least likely to actually need insurance. It simply isn't good business to insure someone that's likely to actually need it. Obviously, this goes against the very point of insurance, but when it's for-profit, that's the way you have to do it.
|
On September 05 2012 10:36 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 10:35 dvorakftw wrote:On September 05 2012 10:23 screamingpalm wrote:
Under Obamacare, not everyone will be covered... I think fact checkers might have something to say about that claim. What makes you think they care about facts rather than regurgitating liberal spin? Did you learn *anything* at all from your temp ban? O_o
Yeah, I learned there were several people who conspire to report me for stuff that the other side does on a regular basis. Several of them got warnings this time because I had not been reporting their insults previously but if they continue we can expect to see them banned!
|
Canada11261 Posts
No I have not had time to find facts and figures on it. I'm listening to a bunch of speakers and commentating on something I thought was crazy. If it's crazy and it's wrong, well and good. But it's still shocking to hear nonetheless. Geez.
|
On September 05 2012 10:45 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 10:36 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 10:35 dvorakftw wrote:On September 05 2012 10:23 screamingpalm wrote:
Under Obamacare, not everyone will be covered... I think fact checkers might have something to say about that claim. What makes you think they care about facts rather than regurgitating liberal spin? Did you learn *anything* at all from your temp ban? O_o Yeah, I learned there were several people who conspire to report me for stuff that the other side does on a regular basis. Several of them got warnings this time because I had not been reporting their insults previously but if they continue we can expect to see them banned!
Glad to see that it's never your fault. Seriously, please try to consider why someone like xDaunt, who certainly holds views that clash with many members posting in this thread, is at least somewhat respected. Your views may be rather similar, but you really would strengthen you case and cause if you took some cues from some of the better posters here.
|
I was denied coverage for a pre-existing condition personally and can only imagine how tough insurance companies have been on women...
|
On September 05 2012 10:43 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 10:34 Falling wrote:On September 05 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On September 05 2012 10:14 Falling wrote:
Ted Strickland. "If Romney was Santa Claus, he'd fire the reindeer and outsource the elves."
Those are some pretty messed up rules the insurance companies had for women. Which rules are you referring to? I can't remember them all as it's a couple speakers back. Something like charging 50% more for women for the same coverage. And then denying coverage anyways. And was there any analysis in that claim at all? Do you have any facts or figures on the cost and frequency of women's health care compared to that for men? I haven't been to a doctor in over a decade. What is the direct medical financial burden of a new father? Believe it or not, insurance rates weren't an evil plot by greedy men to take the moneyz from women. If Democrats took over car insurance the same way it'd be like forcing owners of 89 Honda Accords to pay the same amount as owners of 2012 Porsche convertibles.
The difference between car insurance and health insurance is that people can choose to not own a car.
|
Crack team of .......... people the Dems mustered together. You have Nancy, Carter x2, a former black panther, a woman who screams sexual harassment to get anywhere in the military, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and the mayor of the most corrupt city this side of the border Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. This is the best the could do......and that isn't even half of the speakers. Holy ball sacks batman it's sad that half these people are not just laughed off stage let alone let on there in the first place.
EDIT- Get this Barney Frank is speaking too lul.
|
On September 05 2012 10:45 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 10:36 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 10:35 dvorakftw wrote:On September 05 2012 10:23 screamingpalm wrote:
Under Obamacare, not everyone will be covered... I think fact checkers might have something to say about that claim. What makes you think they care about facts rather than regurgitating liberal spin? Did you learn *anything* at all from your temp ban? O_o Yeah, I learned there were several people who conspire to report me for stuff that the other side does on a regular basis. Several of them got warnings this time because I had not been reporting their insults previously but if they continue we can expect to see them banned!
Take it from someone who is generally on your side: you need to clean up your posts.
|
On September 05 2012 10:49 CajunMan wrote:
Crack team of .......... people the Dems mustered together. You have Nancy, Carter x2, a former black panther, a woman who screams sexual harassment to get anywhere in the military, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and the mayor of the most corrupt city this side of the border Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. This is the best the could do......and that isn't even half of the speakers. Holy ball sacks batman it's sad that half these people are not just laughed off stage let alone let on there in the first place.
Notice the stunning lack of totally baseless mudslinging from liberals during the RNC. Please, come up with something actual to say, or say nothing at all.
|
On September 05 2012 08:46 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why? You know, I really don't understand this attitude. Obama is many things, many of which I disagree with, but he's definitely a hawk (which, coincidentally, I disagree with). And not a retarded, country invading, quagmire starting hawk. His policies have been pragmatic, focused but aggressive, and have generally left America in a better position foreign-policy wise. He doesn't piss everyone off, but still kills a lot of people. And this is coming from a guy who's pretty pacifist, and who you would describe as wanting the US to be "weak and defenseless". I do not agree with the aggressive nature of Obama's policies, but describing him as weak and defenseless is silly. I'm coming from the opposite side of the fence as you are on this, and I'm telling you I think Obama has had a very aggressive, military based foreign-policy. He just doesn't start new ground based invasions. Which seems like a good thing, as you guys have yourselves a bit of a situation as a result of those wars. Short of wishing Obama started more ground wars against perceived threats, I really don't know what more a hawk could ask for (targetted assassinations, drone bombings, torture-based interrogation, successfully carpet bombing an unfriendly dictator into oblivion and essentially guaranteeing a victory for a rebellion against him, etc.). Nuking Iran, maybe? I think there's a pretty good worldwide consensus that that would start a shitstorm with unforseeable consequences, though... Anti-Obama people are weird. Not everything he does is inherently bad. It's particularly interesting that right-wing folk perceive his actions negatively when he does right-wing things....
I'd be glad to read all your literature on how current events in Egypt, Libya, and Syria are a good thing for the US. Also why is it a good idea to brag about killing Osama a few hours after it happened rather than waiting to analyze captured intel for additional anti-terrorist operations?
|
On September 05 2012 10:49 CajunMan wrote:
Crack team of .......... people the Dems mustered together. You have Nancy, Carter x2, a former black panther, a woman who screams sexual harassment to get anywhere in the military, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and the mayor of the most corrupt city this side of the border Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. This is the best the could do......and that isn't even half of the speakers. Holy ball sacks batman it's sad that half these people are not just laughed off stage let alone let on there in the first place.
Who do you think would have been better choices? I certainly disagree with some of the choices here, but I'm curious to see what your ideal picks would have been.
|
On September 05 2012 10:52 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 10:49 CajunMan wrote:
Crack team of .......... people the Dems mustered together. You have Nancy, Carter x2, a former black panther, a woman who screams sexual harassment to get anywhere in the military, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and the mayor of the most corrupt city this side of the border Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. This is the best the could do......and that isn't even half of the speakers. Holy ball sacks batman it's sad that half these people are not just laughed off stage let alone let on there in the first place. Who do you think would have been better choices? I certainly disagree with some of the choices here, but I'm curious to see what your ideal picks would have been.
Honestly, what democrats need to do is flush the current leadership and bring in a newer, fresher generation. They can't do that now for obvious reasons, but they'll be perfectly positioned to hit the reset button after this election.
|
On September 05 2012 09:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:59 Praetorial wrote:
From a certain perspective Romney shat on the British during his visit when he talked about uncertainties regard their ability to host the Olympics...
And the relationship between Obama and Cameron is a lot better than between Bush and Blair in my opinion... On the first point, what Romney did was stupid, but it doesn't compare to all that Obama has done. .
I think it was smart of Romney. British people can't vote in our elections and he was correct with what he said.
|
On September 05 2012 09:05 Elegy wrote:
It sounds so nice on paper, but the facts don't support the myth that the United States launched an invasion of Iraq to "get oil".
A good footnote to that, it should always be mentioned that Russia, China, France, and Germany all had national oil companies with billion dollar contracts with Saddam and they were worried their government might lose out on a lot of money with Saddam gone and a need to renegotiate those.
|
I must say, Deval Patrick had the fire and passion of a true Masshole 
Good speech!
|
On September 05 2012 10:52 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 10:49 CajunMan wrote:
Crack team of .......... people the Dems mustered together. You have Nancy, Carter x2, a former black panther, a woman who screams sexual harassment to get anywhere in the military, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and the mayor of the most corrupt city this side of the border Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. This is the best the could do......and that isn't even half of the speakers. Holy ball sacks batman it's sad that half these people are not just laughed off stage let alone let on there in the first place. Who do you think would have been better choices? I certainly disagree with some of the choices here, but I'm curious to see what your ideal picks would have been.
I would stick with speakers who are much more respectable first off Bill Clinton is probably one of the few good choices they made. I don't think they dare allow Hillary close to that podium (even though she might I am not watching) but she'd be good. I think the problem with the Democrats are (and the Republicans in many cases not as many though it seems) everyone of the people that are at least semi well known are COVERED in scandal or are just idiots. This is on both sides but this lineup is just stupid. The only other thing they could do is pick up and coming new senators and Representative but then that lacks for lack of a better word Star Power in that people don't know them. Even though the way many of these people are made popular only for their negatives you would never know that by how they are shown to the public.
On September 05 2012 10:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 10:49 CajunMan wrote:
Crack team of .......... people the Dems mustered together. You have Nancy, Carter x2, a former black panther, a woman who screams sexual harassment to get anywhere in the military, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and the mayor of the most corrupt city this side of the border Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. This is the best the could do......and that isn't even half of the speakers. Holy ball sacks batman it's sad that half these people are not just laughed off stage let alone let on there in the first place. Notice the stunning lack of totally baseless mudslinging from liberals during the RNC. Please, come up with something actual to say, or say nothing at all.
One mans mudslingings is another mans truth. When the truth comes hitting you in the face it hurts and you can kick and scream not fair and he is mean all you want it won't make it go away. Me criticizing their speakers is a very real point I don't think I did much embellishing in my quoted post feel free to correct me. I'd love to hear your defense of Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid first.
Also funny aside you cannot enter or get close to the DNC without an ID or buy many of the Obama products from the campaign without proof of citizenship because it is a campaign contribution. MOOOOOMMMMMM THE IRONY IT HURTS I CAN'T TAKE IT ANY LONGER MY SIDES OOOO OWWWW
|
On September 05 2012 10:56 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 09:01 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2012 08:59 Praetorial wrote:
From a certain perspective Romney shat on the British during his visit when he talked about uncertainties regard their ability to host the Olympics...
And the relationship between Obama and Cameron is a lot better than between Bush and Blair in my opinion... On the first point, what Romney did was stupid, but it doesn't compare to all that Obama has done. . I think it was smart of Romney. British people can't vote in our elections and he was correct with what he said.
By that logic, it would be perfectly okay for Romny to do something like constantly remind Germans that they spawned Adolf Hitler, when that clearly is a bad idea. The comment reflects badly on Romney's ability to be diplomatic. It was an unforced error. Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
