EPTUser was warned for this post
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 412
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
On September 05 2012 10:56 dvorakftw wrote: I think it was smart of Romney. British people can't vote in our elections and he was correct with what he said. ... British people get to vote for people in there election. ... | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 05 2012 10:55 xDaunt wrote: 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. LOL. You're hilarious. Good luck with that pro-tax cut anti-spending anti-revenue evangelical war-baiting pro-life homophobic all white-guy party over there. User was warned for this post | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 05 2012 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I must say, Deval Patrick had the fire and passion of a true Masshole  Good speech! That speech was better than anything the RNC was able to muster. That dude was on fucking fire. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 05 2012 11:02 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: I sure hope the DNC brings out my favourite democrat of them all, Warren Buffett. He could not possibly cause more of a ruckus then Clint and usually has something interesting to say. Not to mention he is good example of someone who is rich and cares about other things more then money, unlike most of the Republicans who seem to idolize wealth above all else. And he knows how to balance a checkbook - unlike most Democrats! Ba-zing!! | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On September 05 2012 08:41 xDaunt wrote: I was talking more about the whole historically failed presidency thing. I'm sure that Obama will do just fine pursuing miscellaneous humanitarian concerns after he's relieved of his presidential duties in January. If only Obama had the strength of character to be like Palin and quit and do what he really wants to do, make speeches without consequences and play golf. | ||
farvacola
United States18840 Posts
On September 05 2012 11:03 screamingpalm wrote: I assume these are the opening acts and are saving the headliners for later. I think they had a powerful start though. Maybe they are trying to motivate the left, but I was impressed... of course de ja vu with the rhetoric all over again. It does seem to have more substance just in the opening round than the entirety of the RNC, but again, maybe they are just speaking my language. I think it has a lot to do with how powerful certain social issues can be when presented orally; stuff like the removal of DADT and the merits of universal healthcare are more easily translated into hype than a critique of economic policy. | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
On September 05 2012 11:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: And he knows how to balance a checkbook - unlike most Democrats! Ba-zing!! Warren Buffett for President? who would be Vice? Munger, or maybe Gates... | ||
|
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
On September 05 2012 11:03 Defacer wrote: LOL. You're hilarious. Good luck with that pro-tax cut anti-spending anti-revenue evangelical war-baiting pro-life homophobic all white-guy party over there. Wow. That's kind of a jerk thing to say about 40% of the US people. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Half the whiners or this thread would be tightening their nooses errrrrrr I mean sharpening their pitchforks. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 05 2012 11:06 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: Warren Buffett for President? who would be Vice? Munger, or maybe Gates... I'd vote for Buffett/Gates. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 05 2012 11:06 woody60707 wrote: Wow. That's kind of a jerk thing to say about 40% of the US people. I didn't know that 40% of America was homophobes. Fascinating. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
| ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On September 05 2012 10:45 Funnytoss wrote: 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. By that logic life insurance companies only want immortals for customers. You are correct however that since the concept of insurance is tied to risk in a sane business model, it doesn't make much sense to force the companies to act as a discount service of taking money from young healthy people to pay for known regular costs such as Sandra Fluke's contraceptives. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
I guess this guy is "filler". :D | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 05 2012 11:13 xDaunt wrote: Okay, liberals. Here's your chance to post your obligatory digs at American exceptionalism. I know, I know. No offense, but I was raised by immigrants too, and Canada has been great to us. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
| ||
| ||
