Romney vs. Obama

[Ken C]

Right on Bob!!

Give em' some koolaide antidote. I really hate that this has basically turned into a pissing match.

But all y'all supporting Barry gotta start thinking about where your info comes from. If it's from any of the alphabet soup news networks there's a slant to it, yes Fox is slanted.

But if you have 6 (all I could come up with atm) networks all pulling to the left, Fox is just giving you another pov.

Whose on the left you say? Abc, cbs, nbc, CNN, msnbc, and pbs, now that's just the nightly news. That doesn't count all the shows with "opinions" on them. Or the Saturday and Sunday political shows. I'm even seeing people using comedy central as a source.!!

Come on people use your heads. Then think of all the folks who don't even watch the news to stay informed that voted for Barry the last go around. "CUZ HE'S COOL"

My liberal co-worker actually thought the "Saturday night live" skit of Palin saying "I can see Russia from my front door" was for real.

Are y'all gonna do this to the country again? I really don't think y'all have any idea what's going to happen if you do. The guy has as much as admitted where going to get screwed hard if he gets another term. He actually said it to Putin.

Oh and as to the comment Romney made about the Palestinians. You got that way out of context. I've yet to hear the whole thing, but it was basically what I stated before. He was talking about how the government is run in Palestine, not about the people. You got the politically correct crap making you blind and deaf

Also Clinton was the one who signed the repeal of glass-speagal (I know I spelled that wrong, that's not the point) that deregulated the banks, and allowed an investment bank and the cash my check, home loan bank, to play with each other's money. And that's what got us in this mess with those damn credit default swaps.

And as for the "read my lips" comment. If you look into how things were going back then, instead of hearing a one sentence quote. You'd learn that poppy Bush got put into a corner by the Dems and had no choice in the matter. The buggers snuck a line in a bill that poppy needed at the time and since there's no line item veto power for the potus. It was sign the bill into law and get what he needed, or scrap the whole thing.

But then the Dems are masters of that sneaky crap. They did it with health care by locking the gop out of the room when it came time to go over things. And tidy up the draft, before it went to a vote.

So my original point when I joined this thread still stands. "TRUST NOBODY IN WASHINGTON" and I'll add another. Learn for yourselves what the deal is, don't trust some news anchor, some actor, or some friggin comedian for your information. If you do, your just going to get us all screwed...

 

[gamblor01]

Here you go then:

It is bad for everyone. For example, I have amazing care but I cannot change it, according to OC. If I wanted to improve it, it goes away. One of the provisions in the plan is existing plans cannot be changed. Many corporations will likely drop your coverage to take advantage of OC.

Got a source for this? I'm pretty sure all I ever heard was "If you like your existing plan, you can keep it." There was nothing in there about how it can never change. I would like to see where in the bill it says an existing plan cannot change (and then sue the pants off of my insurance company if they raise the price because that would constitute a change in plan which is illegal).

It is bad for doctors because it further screws up Medicaid and there is not enough money to handle millions of new patients.

How does it further screw up Medicaid...please provides examples with citations. Also, the additional taxes paid by those who earn over $200k/year ($250k/year for married, filing jointly) should help cover additional patients.

I am being forced into paying an estimated 2500.00 per year and worst of all, is the IRS is tasked with collection. You might like it, but should it remain in effect, it will cost you dearly. I would love to see how an America that wanted UHC to react when it comes time to pony up the payment. And with the IRS handling collections, they will simply take the money from you. no choice!

How are you being forced to pay an additional $2500/year? Do you not have a policy right now? I have medical insurance and since I'm married and we make less than $250k/year I don't see my family paying any additional taxes:

Here Are The New Obamacare Taxes - Business Insider

Millions of people stand to lose their existing coverage.

Explain...and again cite sources. 30 million uninsured people right now will GAIN coverage so I don't understand where you are getting your numbers.

Competition is drastically reduced so the costs will grow over time.

I fail to see how competition is affected at all. Again, you're welcome to purchase any insurance you want under this plan. It doesn't force you to pick one or the other. You're still free to pick any plan you like based on the merits of those plans.

It will jam up your waiting room.

I don't necessarily buy this argument. If everyone is covered then people don't have to postpone treatment until it's absolutely necessary. Having reasonably priced coverage allows you to visit your general physician at a nominal charge, and encourages regular checkups. This implies that the ER will actually be freed up. And if the waiting room at your general physician is jammed up then it sounds like they need to hire another doctor. Why is that a bad thing? Do you have something against low unemployment?

Doctors might not be able to make the decision about what is best for your care. I know the phrase "Death Panel" made the news some time ago, but bean counters will make the decisions. Perhaps the IBEW can be tasked with unplugging granny when she is refused treatment.

And the complaint now is that health care is insanely high because doctors order unnecessary tests just to get reimbursements from health care. It makes it sounds like every doctor is crooked and their only goal is to suck every last penny out of the insurance company/patient/medicare/etc. I have to believe that is the exception and not the rule. I assume most doctors get into the business because they truly like helping people. I don't buy this argument at all.

The plan will increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. Some are saying it is more like 1.8 trillion over a ten year period. It is the government so lets play it safe and simply assume costs will grow, not slow.

Source? Also it's all speculation anyway until we actually see what happens. If it turns out to cost way more then hopefully we'll realize that and work to fix it. The only way to know with certainty would be able to see the future, which if you can do...please kindly pass along the next winning numbers for Mega Millions.

Those that signed it into law did not read the 2500 page (give or take) bill before they signed it. You really want those making the law to avoid reading what they wanted to pass?

They just assumed it is good for us and so we are stuck until a conservative is elected and can put an end to the nonsense once and for all.

Most bills are insanely long. If only the bills could be limited to a maximum of 3 pages or something like that. But they aren't and so they are given tons of different pieces of legislation that are all impossibly long. I'll bet they don't read any bills in their entirety...where would they find the time during all of their campaigning and extracurricular activities (sexcapades, drugs, etc.)??

Seriously though, if they're smart they have a staff divide up and comb different portions of the stuff and give them the key points (good, bad, and neutral).

We fix HC in this country by tort reform, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, healthy competition across the board and other minor things that are easier to implement compared to Obama care. I could probably write a new bill weighing in at 25 pages that would be far more doable and fair.

The government stinks at managing the public trust. You really want them running your health care? Really? It is an unpresidented government power grab, clearly and unargueably.

If you can write a perfect piece of reform in 25 pages then do it. If it were that easy I'm sure it would be done every day in Washington but it's obviously not.

Furthermore, selling insurance across state lines would mean interstate commerce which would then mean that responsibility belongs to the federal government instead of the states. Of course if that were to happen you would be screaming about the fed was making a huge power grab (the same argument you made in this exact post about Obamacare). So it sounds to me like selling across state lines is actually something you would be looking to prevent.

Obama care is clearly constitutionally illegal despite what SCOTUS has to say. And if they can mandate your care, they can start mandating other stuff. Perhaps take away your fat children because you clearly cannot raise them. OK, that might not happen, as I was thinking when Obama nationalized one auto maker.

At least I'll be able to yell at large people for super double-sizing their fries and shakes. After all, if my tax dollar pays for their bad choices, I have a right to tell fatso to drop those fries. Smiley!

And it is the government, remember that. Clearly, they are capable of running a lean, mean Obama-care machine. Just like your DMV, right?

Note that the bailouts were backed by McCain as well while he was campaigning. And furthermore, Bush gave $4 billion to Chrysler right before he left office and then Obama gave them another $8.5 billion. Why isn't he being criticized for bailing out the auto industry???!?!

President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout - The Washington Post

According to the White House, Obama is counting only the $8.5 billion loan that he made to Chrysler, not the $4 billion that President George W. Bush extended in his last month in office.

Of course this is all nonsense anyway since it was Congress that approved the bailout so to place the blame solely on Bush or Obama is not really fair.

Need more data?

I do need more data -- I would like to see actual sources to backup your claims. You posted a lot of numbers yet no evidence. What I see seems to be mostly scare tactics without any citations or logical arguments to back them up.

You also failed to respond at all to the insurance mandate. Why are you and everyone else so up in arms about being forced to purchase health insurance but completely content with the fact that you're forced to pay for automobile insurance? Where is the distinction?

 

[OutofDate1980]

I'm sorry, but if you think Gore is any sort of unifying political figure I have no idea what kind of reality you're living in. The main reason why global warming is such a controversial issue here in the US is because Gore became the face of it.

Gore did win a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

... Half the country instantly dismissed or was skeptical of it just because he was the face of the cause. ...

Hyperbole. Mostly Koch and companies spreading propaganda via secretly funded bias research that made it controversial. Once discovered the consensus is that global warming is man made, there is no longer a debate.

 

[Android311]

Gore should of won "The Biggest Scam Award"

 

[gamblor01]

I'm even seeing people using comedy central as a source.!!

That's because they point out how ridiculous the majority of politics is. Just because The Daily Show may have followed a show of "puppets making crank phone calls" doesn't mean that anything Jon Stewart says is automatically invalid. If he makes a valid argument then it shouldn't matter what network he is on.

My liberal co-worker actually thought the "Saturday night live" skit of Palin saying "I can see Russia from my front door" was for real.

So what if the quote from SNL was not the exact quote that Palin said? She didn't say "I can see Russia from my house." Ok fine -- I know that. What she actually said was "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." However, that doesn't make the quote any less ridiculous. To suggest that you have foreign policy experience simply because your state is near another country means nothing. If she had frequent visits to Russia and created policies and such that would be interesting and relevant. To say that you can see Russia from Alaska does not equate to any relevant foreign policy. I have lots of houses in my neighborhood that I can see and yet I have never met the people that live there and I know nothing about them.

Are y'all gonna do this to the country again? I really don't think y'all have any idea what's going to happen if you do. The guy has as much as admitted where going to get screwed hard if he gets another term. He actually said it to Putin.

As I said to Bob, blaming Obama or Bush or whoever is completely unfair. Congress drafts our legislation and quite honestly I blame Congress just as much as I blame our Presidents.

Also Clinton was the one who signed the repeal of glass-speagal (I know I spelled that wrong, that's not the point) that deregulated the banks, and allowed an investment bank and the cash my check, home loan bank, to play with each other's money. And that's what got us in this mess with those damn credit default swaps.

Thank you -- I actually did not know this. But everybody else (Congress, GW Bush) let it slide and continue for years until it ruined the economy so they should all share in the blame as well.

But then the Dems are masters of that sneaky crap. They did it with health care by locking the gop out of the room when it came time to go over things. And tidy up the draft, before it went to a vote.

You don't actually believe that the Republicans are saints here do you? Both parties continually do whatever it takes to pass their own agenda.

So my original point when I joined this thread still stands. "TRUST NOBODY IN WASHINGTON" and I'll add another. Learn for yourselves what the deal is, don't trust some news anchor, some actor, or some friggin comedian for your information. If you do, your just going to get us all screwed...

Now this is something that I can definitely agree with! I've said it before and I'll say it again -- all politicians are crooks and liars.

 

[cjr72]

How exactly is giving companies that bring jobs back into the country a tax break a poorly thought out idea? Here I thought that reducing unemployment and improving the economy was supposed to be a good thing -- oops

Did you read the Boston Globe article that I linked to in post #844 about that bill? Just because a bill is ostensibly about stopping the offshoring of jobs or any other hot button topic doesn't automatically make it a good bill. Hey the Patriot Act fights terrorism so it has to be a good bill right?

 

[Ken C]

Again my point is missed.

The Palin reference is about the fact that there were uncountable numbers of people that couldn't tell the difference. What started as a joke became for some people the truth and they based they're votes on this. I personally wouldn't have chose her as my vp. Even though Alaska has a landmass that is damn near the size of the rest of the country. She had, through her husband an inside track of the oil industry. And a view of the world that was in line with allot of the country.

And to follow your argument. How does a guy who never held a real job give him foreign policy experience? You do know that's why Biden was his choice as veep. to shore up what was seen as a liability for the man. put Aside the fact that he promised the people that got him into the Senate that he would serve out his term before doing anything else? Have you seen the guy's voting record while he was a senator? He may as well not even showed up for work. I don't have the number in front of me, but he actually voted less than ten times on any legislation. In fact I can say without fear of being shown wrong that he actually voted less than 5 times. Maybe once? And how long was he a senator? Somewhere around 180 days? I know the number sounds ridiculous, but it was in fact ridiculous.

I personally don't disagree totally with global warming. But, depending on your age, you may or may not recall during the early 80's that they were teaching in the schools that we were heading into another ice age.

I'd also point to the middle ages that the world went through an unusual warm period of a few hundred years or so, which was followed by what scientists call a mini ice age. This resulted in an expansion of the polar ice to a point where it damn near covered most of Europe.

In not saying it's not happening. But the idea of using food to power your car's (ethanol) is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Nasa should be given the funding to research the development of the hydrogen fuel cell. You get all the power of a regular car, and the waste product is nothing but water.

And actually if by proxy you can say congress drafts the legislation. Most if not all bills are drafted by aides. Not that they're not smart people, or that I have anything against younger people. But our laws are being written by people just out of college. Not by the people holding the seat. And in that respect experience not idealism should be doing these things.

On to the bailouts. And in this we may find something we agree on. To a point.

And that point is, while the rest of the country were losing their jobs. These banks, whose CEO's make millions of dollars had they're assess covered and continued to make obscenely high salaries. But here's the best part. They took this money, bought treasuries at cut rate prices, then turned around and sold them to the unsuspecting. Thereby making a huge profit at the expense of the taxpayers.

Basically they laundered the monies took their cut, and the little guy got screwed... again.

If they hadn't been bailed out. The banks would have been dismantled through bankruptcy, the pieces picked up through sales to smaller firms, thereby getting rid of the "too big to fail" garbage.

On their other hand, if the money had been given to the people, who would have paid their bills, and made other purchases, the funds thereby finding its way back to the banks in the process stimulating the economy in a more direct way. All these people wouldn't have lost their homes. And the banks would have gotten their money, which they refuse to lend out like they were supposed to. The way it was done, they got the money and the houses, which they can resell and the payments folks had already made before the crash.

As for the auto companies. They should have been forced to sweat it out. They made deals with the unions that were unrealistic. If you count pay and benefits, such as 401k's 100% payed health insurance etc.. some of those people were costing the companies somewhere in the amount of $70+hr to turn a friggin bolt. the unions were unwilling to negotiate, and were basically cutting their own throats. At the expense of yet again the taxpayers. But since unions are a large voting block for the dems that wasn't going to be allowed to happen.

No I don't believe the republicans are angels or saints if you prefer. But, there is a difference in how the parties behave. Republicans suffer from an inability to get their msg across no matter what it is. But, in their favor. If say, a republican senator/congressman does a stupid, you'll notice that the rest of the gop will force said idiot to resign. Where as the dems will circle the wagons and fight tooth and nail for somebody who's is blatantly guilty for whatever indiscretion is on the table at the time.

Look at Clinton & the Monica situation. Aside from what the issue was. The guy perjured himself under oath. Which is a federal offense, now if it was you or I, we'd be in prison. He broke the law. And what happened? He lost his law license. How does that hurt him? When aside from the presidential retirement ($144000/yr) he gets paid obscene amounts to give speeches, open Chuck cheeses etc. And that's just wrong, no matter how you slice it.

And as I've said before. I'm not making these posts to say this person is better than that. I'm trying to put enough information out there so that people will open their minds to the truths that are in front of them.

My choice to support Romney stems from the Obama/McCain election. I wanted Romney then, but the gop is so beholden to the Christian coalition, that they couldn't have gotten him the nomination.

Now if Hillary were to have received the nomination last time I'd have picked her. There's something about her, she comes from gop roots and is just a smart tough broad. In this case Obama was smart in his choice of Secretary of state.

This time I'd have loved to see my choice being Ron Paul. He's exactly what I want. A guy who tells you like it is whether you like it or not. I just don't see the far left, or right going for him. Which is another reason I like him. But I also want somebody that had a chance at getting elected.

Since its Mitt and Barry this time around. I'm for Romney, he's a businessman which is what we need atm. Don't give me the outsourcing argument, he's running a business. And in business it's about how to get around without getting screwed by the government through taxes. Plain and simple, they all do it. Even Warren Buffet with his 17% rate. But then again I'm a contractor who does high end work on luxury homes. That's something you just can't outsource.

And Obamacare. Give me the same deal the fools in Washington get and I'll think about it. But, the scotus said it's a tax. So your gonna be taxed for being alive. Auto insurance only applies if you own a car, not if you don't. So that argument is total bs.

 

[saptech]

Did Nixon goto jail for Watergate, nope. He did resign of his own free will, instead of being impeached. Nixon and all of his coharts made money after the fact giving speeches and what not. But do you know who the real hero of Watergate was, probably not? In fact, he died penniless and couldn't get another job after watergate.

http://www.georgecurry.com/columns/frank-wills-the-real-hero-of-watergate

Did Reagan or Ollie North goto jail for Irangate, nope. Reagan didn't even have to resign. He claims he didn't know anything about it. How does the most powerful man in the world not no what is going on? If you believe that balony story.

Both sides of our political system is corrupt now days and things have been going on this way for a good while, it hasn't just started since Obama took office.

And baby Bush is the worst to come out. He should have been impeached his first term, because his second term, "Mission Accomplished". His actions then is today's reaction.

I'm not saying Obama is the know all do all but he did do some things to stop the downward spiral Bush started.

I forgot to mention how Romneycare was fine and dandy for MA. but not so fine and dandy for the nation as a whole. That's probably how he will see things and run the nation, if elected.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... And actually if by proxy you can say congress drafts the legislation. Most if not all bills are drafted by aides. Not that they're not smart people, or that I have anything against younger people. But our laws are being written by people just out of college. Not by the people holding the seat. And in that respect experience not idealism should be doing these things. ...

Ever heard of ALEC, our laws are written by lobbyist, which is why our tax code is so convoluted. Those that can afford politicians will write laws that benefit the interest of them that's paying.

Democratic Party has a better chance of changing this pay-to-play system, only because they're not as good at it as the Republican Party.

This unfettered free market capitalism has not worked in the past, remember the Depression of the 30's, and will never work. Even Greenspan now realizes this.

Economic inequality will always lead to disaster. Compare the national debt prior to 1980, prior to the bs of voodoo economics, and what is now.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Gore did win a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Which means the public considers him a unifying figure how? I don't follow the logic.

Hyperbole. Mostly Koch and companies spreading propaganda via secretly funded bias research that made it controversial. Once discovered the consensus is that global warming is man made, there is no longer a debate.

You contend that the consensus amongst the public is that global warming is man made? 'Cuz a poll done last year said the opposite. What makes you think the American public is united on the global warming issue and that Gore is a unifying figure in this cause?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Where did you see this? I've yet to get my news update for the day. (It takes 4-5 hours for me to go through all my news outlets) Do you have a context for it? I can't believe he'd say something like that, (and opinionated as I am I don't subscribe to any group being superior to any other) there are things that could be used as arguments for that, but they wouldn't be based on any racial or religious views. They'd be governmental system points though and I'd rather not end up typing out a synopsis of Nietzsche's philosophy of the over-man.

Culture Does Matter - By Mitt Romney - The Corner - National Review Online

Gingrich: Romney was right about Israel being culturally superior | The Raw Story

It really is ridiculous... this man cannot go abroad without making enemies. I mean he has even lost credibility in Poland, which took George W. Bush eight years (Poland is the most pro-American country in Europe).

I think Israel's success compared to the rest of Palestine might be due to getting lots of skilled well educated immigrants who were singular minded and received tons of aid, and then stealing Palestinian land and resources.
Of course money makes you a superior being now according to Romney so who cares? Romney's the kind of president who'll end up destroying NATO due to his own sheer insularity.

Also I noted a piece saying that the ancient Egyptians were superior to the Israelis based on Romney logic. This man is hopeless.

 

[JamesJoey]

Good luck

 

[cjr72]

Ever heard of ALEC, our laws are written by lobbyist, which is why our tax code is so convoluted. Those that can afford politicians will write laws that benefit the interest of them that's paying.

I couldn't agree more.

Democratic Party has a better chance of changing this pay-to-play system, only because they're not as good at it as the Republican Party.

Perhaps, since the Democratic party claims to be the party of the little guy. But that also makes the Democratic more hypocritical in my mind. Obama railing against Wall Street after genuflecting before them in 2008 for the lion share of campaign donations is akin to a social conservative Republican getting caught with a prostitute.

This unfettered free market capitalism has not worked in the past, remember the Depression of the 30's, and will never work. Even Greenspan now realizes this.

Many argue that the Great Depression was deepened and prolonged due to the uncertainty and unintended consequences caused by constant government intervention starting with the Smoot-Hawley tariff:

Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, some economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression.[15] Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot

 

[gamblor01]

Again my point is missed.

The Palin reference is about the fact that there were uncountable numbers of people that couldn't tell the difference.

It's such a ridiculous statement I'm not so sure it matters that someone knows what the exact quote was.

And to follow your argument. How does a guy who never held a real job give him foreign policy experience? You do know that's why Biden was his choice as veep. to shore up what was seen as a liability for the man.

Yes but Obama didn't claim in a nationally televised interview that he had foreign policy experience, and certainly didn't claim it because of some proximity to another country. You're right...he chose Biden for that reason. If Obama had made some ridiculous and outlandish claim that he had foreign policy experience that was clearly BS I would bash him for it as well.

And that point is, while the rest of the country were losing their jobs. These banks, whose CEO's make millions of dollars had they're assess covered and continued to make obscenely high salaries. But here's the best part. They took this money, bought treasuries at cut rate prices, then turned around and sold them to the unsuspecting. Thereby making a huge profit at the expense of the taxpayers.

Basically they laundered the monies took their cut, and the little guy got screwed... again.

If they hadn't been bailed out. The banks would have been dismantled through bankruptcy, the pieces picked up through sales to smaller firms, thereby getting rid of the "too big to fail" garbage.

On their other hand, if the money had been given to the people, who would have paid their bills, and made other purchases, the funds thereby finding its way back to the banks in the process stimulating the economy in a more direct way. All these people wouldn't have lost their homes. And the banks would have gotten their money, which they refuse to lend out like they were supposed to. The way it was done, they got the money and the houses, which they can resell and the payments folks had already made before the crash.

It sounds like you read my mind when you typed this!!

No I don't believe the republicans are angels or saints if you prefer. But, there is a difference in how the parties behave. Republicans suffer from an inability to get their msg across no matter what it is. But, in their favor. If say, a republican senator/congressman does a stupid, you'll notice that the rest of the gop will force said idiot to resign. Where as the dems will circle the wagons and fight tooth and nail for somebody who's is blatantly guilty for whatever indiscretion is on the table at the time.

Look at Clinton & the Monica situation. Aside from what the issue was. The guy perjured himself under oath. Which is a federal offense, now if it was you or I, we'd be in prison. He broke the law. And what happened? He lost his law license. How does that hurt him? When aside from the presidential retirement ($144000/yr) he gets paid obscene amounts to give speeches, open Chuck cheeses etc. And that's just wrong, no matter how you slice it.

I think saptech already answered this. It happens on both sides...I think they are both just as guilty and refuse to believe one side or the other is somehow cleaner. Also, what about Andrew Weiner? He was forced to resign and he didn't even commit any crimes like perjury or anything of that nature. It was embarrassing sure, but not illegal. But this is a direct counterexample to your statement that Democrats rally to keep their members in office.

And Obamacare. Give me the same deal the fools in Washington get and I'll think about it. But, the scotus said it's a tax. So your gonna be taxed for being alive. Auto insurance only applies if you own a car, not if you don't. So that argument is total bs.

I disagree. I have a wife and 2 kids so I was already paying for health insurance anyway (regardless of whether Obamacare passed or not) and since my wife and I don't make over $250k/year there are no direct taxes that should affect us as part of the bill (see previous list of "Obamacare" taxes I have already posted).

Also, according to the census we have roughly 314 million people in the US:

U.S. & World Population Clocks


According to a study in 2007 there were over 254 million cars registered:

Passenger vehicles in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

254/314 is basically 80% (yes some people own multiple cars, and some seniors and children can't drive, etc.). In any case, it's considerably more than half of the population of the US that owns a car. Thus, auto insurance affects a very large majority so I don't see how that is irrelevant.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I'm sorry, but if you think Gore is any sort of unifying political figure I have no idea what kind of reality you're living in. The main reason why global warming is such a controversial issue here in the US is because Gore became the face of it. Half the country instantly dismissed or was skeptical of it just because he was the face of the cause.

Which is why I said the law was irrelevant in the first place.

FYI: Gore is on Apple's board of directors. Just sayin'

 

[OutofDate1980]

Which means the public considers him a unifying figure how? I don't follow the logic.

Your argument was that Gore was divisive.

How is winning a Nobel Peace Prize for educating the public about global warming divisive ? I would call it leadership. By your logic, Copernicus was divisive.

You contend that the consensus amongst the public is that global warming is man made? 'Cuz a poll done last year said the opposite. What makes you think the American public is united on the global warming issue and that Gore is a unifying figure in this cause?

"The consensus is that global warming is man made, there is no longer a debate." is what I wrote.

The global warming deniers for financial gain did delay the truth, but 97% of working climate scientist consensus that global warming is manmade is slowly gaining acceptance by the public.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Romney has far less foreign policy skills than Obama, I really hope no one thinks otherwise. Obama's foreign policy has been really pragmatic and Hillary is doing a good job.

 

[gamblor01]

Romney has far less foreign policy skills than Obama, I really hope no one thinks otherwise. Obama's foreign policy has been really pragmatic and Hillary is doing a good job.

His idea of foreign policy thus far seems to be to cater to Israel and piss off everyone else. There is a whole great, big world out there...

We'll just have to wait and see what else he does and who he picks as a VP, etc.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Your argument was that Gore was divisive.

How is winning a Nobel Peace Prize for educating the public about global warming divisive ? I would call it leadership. By your logic, Copernicus was divisive.

Not sure what your point is. The opposite of divisive is unifying, not leadership. When 50% of the population votes against you in an election and 53% of the population thinks you are wrong on global warming, how are you not a divisive person? I don't know that Copernicus was all that divisive as pretty much everyone disagreed with him. Just for the record, the dictionary definition of the word is:

1. forming or expressing division or distribution.

2. creating dissension or discord.


I think both of those definitions (and certainly the second one) apply to Gore. Again, the opposite of divisive is unifying. Gore is not a unifying person in the political arena.

"The consensus is that global warming is man made, there is no longer a debate." is what I wrote.

The global warming deniers for financial gain did delay the truth, but 97% of working climate scientist consensus that global warming is manmade is slowly gaining acceptance by the public.

And on that you are completely and totally wrong. Did you not even look at the link I posted? Only 47% of Americans believe global warming is man made and 40% believe it's not happening at all. You really think that a politically polarizing figure like Gore being the public figure of the movement hasn't contributed to that at all?

 

[Ken C]

Lol guys your proving my points in how harshly you react to my statements.

I'm trying to get you to think outside of the box and you just refuse to. Go bank and re-read what y'all are posting. The comment on the depression is exactly correct. It was prolonged by the New deal. Not that it didn't have it's good points. But if you look deeper than the surface history you'd see that people like Jp Morgan used their own money to try and stabilize the system before the government did anything.
Private capital from a filthy rich guy. He didn't need to do that. And FDR actually called him in to try to get him to help the government do what it couldn't on its own.

WWll is what got us out of it. And right after the country slipped back into a recession. When we rebuilt Europe we came back to normal.

Ands he's Nixon was a bad boy, do though know why he did what he did? Pronably not, how about Reagan? Nope, just what you've between taught.

Your buddy had wracked up the national debt to a point higher than ALL the presidents that came before him. They doesn't concern you? Stop defending the guy, and start using him by the same rules your judging all the others. If your honest I think your opinion on Barry will change.

How many vacations has he and his wife and everybody they know gone on at the expense of the taxpayers? At the cost of millions of dollars. The bushes and Reagan etc. Didn't even take a paycheck let alone fly all over the world with their posse
On the taxpayers dime. Bush went to a each he owned in Texas.

 

[Android311]

Vote for romney

 

[AgnOStic]

I do not perceive
a significant diff'rence
between Mitt and O.

It is probable
That I will not leave my house
On election day...

On the other hand,
If I do feel so inclined
I'll write-in Ron Paul.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Romney has far less foreign policy skills than Obama, I really hope no one thinks otherwise. Obama's foreign policy has been really pragmatic and Hillary is doing a good job.

The same can be said every election. The incumbent always has more foreign policy experience 'cuz they've been doing it for four years.

 

[ylexot]

On the other hand,
If I do feel so inclined
I'll write-in Ron Paul.

And again, if you like Ron Paul, vote for Gary Johnson. He'll actually be on the ballot.

Get Gary Johnson into the Debates

BTW, nice haiku. :thumb:

 

[RazorSharp]

Did you read the Boston Globe article that I linked to in post #844 about that bill? Just because a bill is ostensibly about stopping the offshoring of jobs or any other hot button topic doesn't automatically make it a good bill. Hey the Patriot Act fights terrorism so it has to be a good bill right?

I'm sure I could find an editorial from some economic talking head in support of the concept of the bill if I felt so inclined. The point is that the Republicans filibustered the bill because the Democrats refused to include amendments that had absolutely nothing to do with the bill itself. The Republican filibuster would have happened regardless of how much fiscal sense the bill made, because the Republicans are holding the legislative process hostage as much as possible, like crying children squalling until parents cave into their demands.

Your buddy had wracked up the national debt to a point higher than ALL the presidents that came before him.

This statement is false. Please also see this piece on national debt as a percentage of GDP and the effects of supply-side economics.