|
|
On October 07 2012 03:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 03:19 farvacola wrote:
Thank God people with actual foreign policy experience and knowledge don't think like you do, or else it would be 2001 all over again. Forgoing relations with the bulk of the world in favor of some inane sabre-rattling temper tantrum is not a felicitous foreign policy. exactly how do I think? i'm not saying what i would have done different than Obama, I'm just saying that his foreign policy has obviously not been the wild success that a lot of people in this thread seem to think it has been. in fact, by any objective standard, there has been very little in the way of real improvement. if there has been some real, tangible improvement, than why don't you list those improvements so that we can discuss them? the pass that Obama is given for his mistakes and lack of results is astounding. i mean, is it really too much to ask that we see some actual results before he goes around gloating about being some foreign policy hero? and no, i don't consider giving the order to assassinate Osama as a very tangible victory for the US. for one, that was a very easy order to give, for another, it hasn't really translated into anything except sating the thirst for vengeance that the US seemed to have.
I think prematurely giving him the Nobel Peace was a mistake and raised the bar too high, I won't say he has been a complete failure but I agree that he is lacking the expected results, especially considering he gave us all "hope" that he would get the middle east to hate us less.
|
On October 07 2012 03:32 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 03:30 rogzardo wrote:On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea. Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening. Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them. But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem. the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job. If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one. It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
Does it say that in your precious constitution?
|
On October 07 2012 03:32 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 03:30 rogzardo wrote:On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea. Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening. Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them. But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem. the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job. If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one. It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
I didn't realize that the government would be replacing the private health care system.
...because they're not.
EDIT: But, since this must be the 10th time the health care argument has come up in this thread, and we aren't changing our minds. I'll drop it.
|
On October 07 2012 03:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 03:19 farvacola wrote:
Thank God people with actual foreign policy experience and knowledge don't think like you do, or else it would be 2001 all over again. Forgoing relations with the bulk of the world in favor of some inane sabre-rattling temper tantrum is not a felicitous foreign policy. exactly how do I think? i'm not saying what i would have done different than Obama, I'm just saying that his foreign policy has obviously not been the wild success that a lot of people in this thread seem to think it has been. in fact, by any objective standard, there has been very little in the way of real improvement. if there has been some real, tangible improvement, than why don't you list those improvements so that we can discuss them? the pass that Obama is given for his mistakes and lack of results is astounding. i mean, is it really too much to ask that we see some actual results before he goes around gloating about being some foreign policy hero? and no, i don't consider giving the order to assassinate Osama as a very tangible victory for the US. for one, that was a very easy order to give, for another, it hasn't really translated into anything except sating the thirst for vengeance that the US seemed to have.
Whenever anyone brings absolutism in judgement to something as nebulous as foreign policy I can only shake my head. Your writing is riddled with fallacious thinking. You'd be doing your political perspective a great service if you removed phrases like "by any objective standard" from your lexicon.
The events in Libya, while certainly a mixed bag with the assassination of the ambassador, were very much improved by Obama's actions. That you hold Obama accountable for a potential lapse in appropriate embassy security says volumes about how little you understand the machinations of the foreign service, especially as you ignore the direction Obama gave in terms of political support for the revolution and oust of Gaddafi. Hillary Clinton, very much in the mold of Madeleine Albright, has been incredibly active in connecting Obama with a host of world leaders, and the relative approval of Obama abroad is proof in the pudding. It is funny you mention Netanyahu endorsing Romney while being totally ignorant of the political turmoil in Israel. Not only is this patently untrue, as it has become clear that Netanyahu will do anything and everything to try and garner support for his hawkish policies, but it assumes some sort of political consensus in Israel that flat out does not exist. Foreign policy is a game of relativities and measured approach, not absolutism.
|
On October 07 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 03:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 03:30 rogzardo wrote:On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea.
Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening. Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them. But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem. the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job. If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one. It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare. Does it say that in your precious constitution?
the argument could be made that certain interpretations of the constitution do bar the government from doing it. though, it's irrelevant to a degree, because something does not have to be unconstitutional to be undesirable as a government action. if your interpretation of the constitution is that it does allow for the President to dictate health-care, than we can argue that, but that doesn't mean your interpretation is the only correct one.
|
This entire thread;
I want to pay more in taxes to offer health care, education, food, etc, for everyone in the country.
I don't want to pay more in taxes for other people's health care, food, etc.
Thread closed.
|
On October 07 2012 03:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 03:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 03:30 rogzardo wrote:On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening. Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them. But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem. the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job. If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one. It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare. Does it say that in your precious constitution? the argument could be made that certain interpretations of the constitution do bar the government from doing it. though, it's irrelevant to a degree, because something does not have to be unconstitutional to be undesirable as a government action. if your interpretation of the constitution is that it does allow for the President to dictate health-care, than we can argue that, but that doesn't mean your interpretation is the only correct one.
Joke's on you, because basically everything the government does is because of one sentence about interstate commerce. You can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Constitution doesn't say jack shit, really.
|
On October 07 2012 03:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 03:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 07 2012 03:19 farvacola wrote:
Thank God people with actual foreign policy experience and knowledge don't think like you do, or else it would be 2001 all over again. Forgoing relations with the bulk of the world in favor of some inane sabre-rattling temper tantrum is not a felicitous foreign policy. exactly how do I think? i'm not saying what i would have done different than Obama, I'm just saying that his foreign policy has obviously not been the wild success that a lot of people in this thread seem to think it has been. in fact, by any objective standard, there has been very little in the way of real improvement. if there has been some real, tangible improvement, than why don't you list those improvements so that we can discuss them? the pass that Obama is given for his mistakes and lack of results is astounding. i mean, is it really too much to ask that we see some actual results before he goes around gloating about being some foreign policy hero? and no, i don't consider giving the order to assassinate Osama as a very tangible victory for the US. for one, that was a very easy order to give, for another, it hasn't really translated into anything except sating the thirst for vengeance that the US seemed to have. Whenever anyone brings absolutism in judgement to something as nebulous as foreign policy I can only shake my head. Your writing is riddled with fallacious thinking. You'd be doing your political perspective a great service if you removed phrases like "by any objective standard" from your lexicon. The events in Libya, while certainly a mixed bag with the assassination of the ambassador, were very much improved by Obama's actions. That you hold Obama accountable for a potential lapse in appropriate embassy security says volumes about how little you understand the machinations of the foreign service, especially as you ignore the direction Obama gave in terms of political support for the revolution and oust of Gaddafi. Hillary Clinton, very much in the mold of Madeleine Albright, has been incredibly active in connecting Obama with a host of world leaders, and the relative approval of Obama abroad is proof in the pudding. It is funny you mention Netanyahu endorsing Romney while being totally ignorant of the political turmoil in Israel. Not only is this patently untrue, as it has become clear that Netanyahu will do anything and everything to try and garner support for his hawkish policies, but it assumes some sort of political consensus in Israel that flat out does not exist. Foreign policy is a game of relativities and measured approach, not absolutism.
it sounds to me like all this rejection of "absolutism" is code for: "don't grade my performance!" well, sorry, but part of Obama's job is taking responsibility for his failures, something he has yet to do.
on the issue of whether Obama himself is directly responsible or not, i'll say to you what you said to me. drop the absolutism. how often can we divorce Obama from his own administration's actions before it becomes a question of who is actually in control, Obama or his administration? is he directly at fault? i don't know. probably not. but he still bears the responsibility for the failures, because he is the boss. if he wants to count the successes of his people as his own, than he also has to take on their failures. furthermore, if he refuses to discipline his subordinates for their failures, than he is implicitly giving consent to their actions.
what does Obama's support for the revolution have to do with him neglecting to protect our people? what does it have to do with a serious terror attack against Americans on the anniversary of 9/11? how does one questionable success somehow erase one massive failure?
sadly, American Presidents are not elected so as to raise their approval ratings in other countries. they are elected to protect our people, whether they reside on our shores or in another nation. this is his primary duty as commander in chief. in this duty, he failed by letting our Ambassador get assassinated, and he failed in his response to that assassination. perhaps the greatest failure is his inability to recognize these facts and work on fixing them. instead he continues his campaign as if nothing happened and expects us all to use his approval ratings in Germany to comfort us.
whether Netanyahu is hawkish or not has nothing to do with the fact that claiming that Obama has brought him onto the same page as himself is flat out untrue. i assumed nothing of any political consensus in Israel.
like i said, it is very hard for me to swallow the idea that we cannot objectively measure Obama's successes and failures in the realm of foreign policy. even if he has some excuses or there are some mitigating factors, he is still responsible for what happens, and a failure is still a failure. also, i have yet to see what hawkish policy i have put forward as an alternative to anything Obama has done.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you can measure it objectively, but not merely based on results involving very complex situations upon which the president has no control.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 07 2012 03:42 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 03:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 07 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 03:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 03:30 rogzardo wrote:On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening. Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them. But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem. the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job. If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one. It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare. Does it say that in your precious constitution? the argument could be made that certain interpretations of the constitution do bar the government from doing it. though, it's irrelevant to a degree, because something does not have to be unconstitutional to be undesirable as a government action. if your interpretation of the constitution is that it does allow for the President to dictate health-care, than we can argue that, but that doesn't mean your interpretation is the only correct one. Joke's on you, because basically everything the government does is because of one sentence about interstate commerce. You can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Constitution doesn't say jack shit, really. he actually didn't say the govt should not care about healthcare. his first comment was "it's not in a state in which i live so it's not my problem." implying that if it is a state in which he lives, then it becomes a problem for govt to look at.
|
On October 07 2012 04:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 03:42 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 03:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 07 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 03:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 03:30 rogzardo wrote:On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them. But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem. the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job. If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one. It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare. Does it say that in your precious constitution? the argument could be made that certain interpretations of the constitution do bar the government from doing it. though, it's irrelevant to a degree, because something does not have to be unconstitutional to be undesirable as a government action. if your interpretation of the constitution is that it does allow for the President to dictate health-care, than we can argue that, but that doesn't mean your interpretation is the only correct one. Joke's on you, because basically everything the government does is because of one sentence about interstate commerce. You can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Constitution doesn't say jack shit, really. he actually didn't say the govt should not care about healthcare. his first comment was "it's not in a state in which i live so it's not my problem." implying that if it is a state in which he lives, then it becomes a problem for govt to look at.
exactly. my government should take care of it. my state government. you know, the one that can actually craft solutions rather than get gridlocked.
|
i'm no expert on the assassination of chris stevens, but i'm pretty sure the issue wasn't embassy security. first off, the US embassy is located in tripoli. stevens was paying a visit to benghazi and was staying at the consulate there.
anyways, the attacks were well-coordinated. pre-planned, and the attackers had RPG's and other military grade hardware. they knew where the safehouses were too.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
where are you from? that perspective is very alien
|
On October 07 2012 04:14 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 04:06 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 03:42 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 03:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 07 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 03:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 03:30 rogzardo wrote:On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job. If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one. It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare. Does it say that in your precious constitution? the argument could be made that certain interpretations of the constitution do bar the government from doing it. though, it's irrelevant to a degree, because something does not have to be unconstitutional to be undesirable as a government action. if your interpretation of the constitution is that it does allow for the President to dictate health-care, than we can argue that, but that doesn't mean your interpretation is the only correct one. Joke's on you, because basically everything the government does is because of one sentence about interstate commerce. You can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Constitution doesn't say jack shit, really. he actually didn't say the govt should not care about healthcare. his first comment was "it's not in a state in which i live so it's not my problem." implying that if it is a state in which he lives, then it becomes a problem for govt to look at. exactly. my government should take care of it. my state government. you know, the one that can actually craft solutions rather than get gridlocked.
I'm sympathetic to this view.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On October 07 2012 04:14 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 04:06 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 03:42 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 03:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 07 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 03:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 03:30 rogzardo wrote:On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job. If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one. It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare. Does it say that in your precious constitution? the argument could be made that certain interpretations of the constitution do bar the government from doing it. though, it's irrelevant to a degree, because something does not have to be unconstitutional to be undesirable as a government action. if your interpretation of the constitution is that it does allow for the President to dictate health-care, than we can argue that, but that doesn't mean your interpretation is the only correct one. Joke's on you, because basically everything the government does is because of one sentence about interstate commerce. You can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Constitution doesn't say jack shit, really. he actually didn't say the govt should not care about healthcare. his first comment was "it's not in a state in which i live so it's not my problem." implying that if it is a state in which he lives, then it becomes a problem for govt to look at. exactly. my government should take care of it. my state government. you know, the one that can actually craft solutions rather than get gridlocked.
This is so far from reality I cannot even fathom how one comes to this conclusion. State budgets across the nation are in shambles, state congressional gridlock is rampant, and the only state that is running in the black is Kentucky, a state which also happens to receive one of the highest amounts of federal money in the country. Here's a question. Which state in the union runs the most efficiently in terms of congressional/executive harmony?
|
On October 07 2012 04:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 04:14 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 04:06 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 03:42 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 03:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 07 2012 03:33 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 03:32 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 03:30 rogzardo wrote:On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job. If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one. It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare. Does it say that in your precious constitution? the argument could be made that certain interpretations of the constitution do bar the government from doing it. though, it's irrelevant to a degree, because something does not have to be unconstitutional to be undesirable as a government action. if your interpretation of the constitution is that it does allow for the President to dictate health-care, than we can argue that, but that doesn't mean your interpretation is the only correct one. Joke's on you, because basically everything the government does is because of one sentence about interstate commerce. You can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Constitution doesn't say jack shit, really. he actually didn't say the govt should not care about healthcare. his first comment was "it's not in a state in which i live so it's not my problem." implying that if it is a state in which he lives, then it becomes a problem for govt to look at. exactly. my government should take care of it. my state government. you know, the one that can actually craft solutions rather than get gridlocked. This is so far from reality I cannot even fathom how one comes to this conclusion. State budgets across the nation are in shambles, state congressional gridlock is rampant, and the only state that is running in the black is Kentucky, a state which also happens to receive one of the highest amounts of federal money in the country. Here's a question. Which state in the union runs the most efficiently in terms of congressional/executive harmony?
Oh, yes.... because our federal government is SOOOO in the black.... -_-
That's extremely subjective.
|
I'm kinda hoping Romney wins. I'd like to see the world go to shit, you thought it was shit before? Imagine another 2tirllion thrown at the war effort! And Russia being America's "Number 1 geo-political enemy" should really make things interesting  . I thought Bush was a pretty big idiot or at least he poorly handled his economy but Romney? Phew, I'm excited to see where that'd go.
|
On October 06 2012 16:18 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 15:20 xDaunt wrote:Just because this is so awesome, here's the cover of next week's New Yorker: ![[image loading]](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/121015_2012_p465.jpg) This is the happiest you've been in months ... did you watch the opening of Colbert last night of him dancing in the audience?
I'm just happy that a republican presidential candidate did well at a debate. A lot of republicans are tired of watching debates where we are represented either by the borderline retarded (Bush) or the impotent (McCain).
I'm also happy that I don't have to change my election prediction. If Romney had bombed, I'd have had to write him off.
|
On October 07 2012 05:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 16:18 Defacer wrote:On October 06 2012 15:20 xDaunt wrote:Just because this is so awesome, here's the cover of next week's New Yorker: This is the happiest you've been in months ... did you watch the opening of Colbert last night of him dancing in the audience? I'm just happy that a republican presidential candidate did well at a debate. A lot of republicans are tired of watching debates where we are represented either by the borderline retarded (Bush) or the impotent (McCain). I'm also happy that I don't have to change my election prediction. If Romney had bombed, I'd have had to write him off.
I wasn't as surprised by Romney's performance as much as I was surprised by Obama's lack of. He just didn't seem all that fired up for someone being accused of a shit ton of failures, some of them not entirely true. He also never really went on the offense very much. Alot of people, me included, were surprised he never mentioned the 47% clip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
