User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 104

  1. #61
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Taxing the rich will surely be able to bring in more than the 167.8 BILLION DOLLARS the country could save annually by limiting benefits to those up 130% of the federally designated poverty line (200% for the disabled).

    Which would become 265 BILLION DOLLARS annually if the benefits are limited to 100% of the poverty line.

  2. #62
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    And how do you plan on funding this utopia?
    Well, I voted Libertarian, so you may be discussing with a ghost.

    However, that is what I want my taxes to go towards. It's representation, not entitlement mentality.

    I want it to come from the same place that congress's and the military's medical care comes from. It's not socialist any more than public education or the UK health care system.

    The US health care system is a mess. We need single payer at the very least. It's a big random mess.

    I protest the system by continuously getting medical care and refusing to pay for it. Where does the money come from? I currently have over $100,000 outstanding bills. Screw the system. Let it go bankrupt. Burn it to the ground. They will not collect.

    Money is a myth. In the 70's money flipped off collateral. It used to be 10% speculative, now it is like 90% speculative and based on a fiction. It is based on promise and debt, which neither main party seems to have the barest inkling to repay.

    We could have medical care tomorrow as an act of will, but we do not because of the insurance lobby and the powers that be.

    But if you have private insurance, I hope your premiums go so high that come across to my point of view.

    The main thing that stops me from getting private insurance is that insurance is systematized to maximize profits (by denying care) rather than maximizing health benefits. I paid 25% of my income for Blue Cross at one time, and they denied my claim for something. I've heard this story from many persons.

    In England doctors are paid more based on success and quality of care, and they are not looking to deny people's claims. The health a patients come first.

    Granted many doctors would like to have the same mentality in the US, but many are also in it just to maximize profits. They only treat you because they fear litigation in many cases, I believe. I don't hear the same reports from the other nation's health care systems.

    In the US, millions of people are in my position and not paying.

  3. #63
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BAJ View Post
    If Obama is responsible for his, then Bush is responsible for his, via the same logic.
    I must not have noticed all the people who speculate that Obama strapped on an AK and attacked the Americans at Benghazi, screaming Allahu Akbar....

    Nobody is accusing Obama of being responsible for the attacks, the accusations are that his administration failed to take reasonable security precautions in case of such an eventuality, did not respond well to the situation as it developed, and covered up the alleged fact that, despite repeated statements to the contrary, they knew it was a terrorist act by Al-Qaeda affiliates rather than spontaneous rioting over a Mohammud movie.

    And even more specifically, we are talking about the media coverage of the issue.

  4. #64
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I must not have noticed all the people who speculate that Obama strapped on an AK and attacked the Americans at Benghazi, screaming Allahu Akbar....

    Nobody is accusing Obama of being responsible for the attacks, the accusations are that his administration failed to take reasonable security precautions in case of such an eventuality, did not respond well to the situation as it developed, and covered up the alleged fact that, despite repeated statements to the contrary, they knew it was a terrorist act by Al-Qaeda affiliates rather than spontaneous rioting over a Mohammud movie.

    And even more specifically, we are talking about the media coverage of the issue.
    What I'm suggesting is that Bush was worse. Perhaps he handled the media better, but he was much, much worse. Are we better off under Obama's foreign policy than Bush? Absolutely no doubt. Will we be better under Obama than Romney? In the area of foreign policy...absolutely no doubt. Romney knows Obama is strong in that area, which is why he parroted Obama's positions in the third debate, with numerous flip flops.

    In general, the Republican party thrives on fear and war. They want people perpetually afraid. I think they would deliberately exacerbate situations globally to spread hegemony and war. They would ramp up terrorist attacks or allow them to occur to perpetuate their imperialist goals.

    Even if that is not their direct goal, these occupations of countries, legitimate or not, increase the growth of terrorism in the world, as more and more people are inspired to join the cause. The Iraq war was unfounded, and Iranians have not declared war in decades. Instead, we declare war frequently, and we've put dozens of military bases on the Iranian border. We send in drones.

    Why is it such terrible thing for Iran to have a weapon? Israel has basements full of them. Pakistan is actually where Osama was, and they have them.

    This whole notion of starting wars is solely for the benefit of the wealthy and powers that be, so that oil can be extracted and so that US corporations can benefit at tax payer expense.

    And why is Israel so special? They and the US are basically terrorists on a grand scale, but we look at it with rose colored glasses. Killing and bombing occur, hundreds of thousands are killed, but we are the "righteous side".

    I can practically promise...mark my words...if Romney is elected, we will be at war with Iran, and perhaps other nations. Fear will be increased. Our standing among nations will fall. The propensity for bilateral and multilateral endeavors will decrease, and our isolation will increase.

    Meanwhile, as militarization increases, our schooling, infrastructure, and economy will increasingly falter.

    We need radical change.

  5. #65
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Right, he already is being accused of politicizing the disaster. Perhaps rightfully so, but let's be honest he's in a catch-22 here. Either he's ignoring the disaster or politicizing it.
    How exactly is going to ny/nj better?

    Edit: oh btw, fundraising for disaster victims typically occurs outside of disaster areas not in them so I don't understand what you're stressing about.
    And we are talking about your argument here that gave the assumption that he wasn't politicizing a disaster. Not whether he should of fund-raised or not.

    For all intent and purposes, there are any number of ways that he could of politicized it, and he chose one of the worse ways in doing so.

    One could say that Romney could of cancelled his campaign in Ohio and move as close to the disaster as possible. In fact, there has been many presumptive presidential candidates that have done so. Ohhh, by the way, he chose Ohio, a battleground state, to campaign and do his fundraising. One could say, from this perspective, he saw the storm as a blimp and that the campaign in Ohio, a battleground state, more important.

  6. #66
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    For all intent and purposes, there are any number of ways that he could of politicized it, and he chose one of the worse ways in doing so.
    Disagree. He chose the only realistic option he had.

    One could say that Romney could of cancelled his campaign in Ohio and move as close to the disaster as possible. In fact, there has been many presumptive presidential candidates that have done so. Ohhh, by the way, he chose Ohio, a battleground state, to campaign and do his fundraising. One could say, from this perspective, he saw the storm as a blimp and that the campaign in Ohio, a battleground state, more important.
    Yes, for Romney the campaign in Ohio is more important to him than Sandy. I don't have anymore of a problem with him than with any of the other millions of American who donated a few bucks to red cross instead of dropping everything to go to NY/NJ to help. It's the president's job to be in NY/NJ it also happens to be politically helpful for him to be there and look presidential. If Romney were president he would've done the same thing. However, right now it is neither Romney's job nor politically savvy for him to go to ny/Nj. Romney's job is in Ohio and Virginia right now.

    I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks Romney should have stopped campaigning a week before the election. That's basically saying you think he should just give up on being president because a hurricane hit a week before the election. I think that's just ridiculous and I don't even want him to win.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  7. #67
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BAJ View Post
    I think they would deliberately exacerbate situations globally to spread hegemony and war. They would ramp up terrorist attacks or allow them to occur to perpetuate their imperialist goals.
    O.K.

  8. #68
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    See how agitated he is. It's better if he doesn't talk to anyone...ever...allies or enemies or world leaders. Certainly their idea to create a media blackout is justified. The more he talks, the worse it is. If he gets elected, then just wait until the honeymoon is over; he may tell everyone to jump in a lake. The only people who will benefit from his election would be the wealthy and comedians.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=TxMD02zU9SE

  9. #69
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Disagree. He chose the only "realistic" option he had.


    Yes, for Romney the campaign in Ohio is more important to him than Sandy. I don't have anymore of a problem with him than with any of the other millions of American who donated a few bucks to red cross instead of dropping everything to go to NY/NJ to help. It's the president's job to be in NY/NJ it also happens to be politically helpful for him to be there and look presidential. If Romney were president he would've done the same thing. However, right now it is neither Romney's job nor politically savvy for him to go to ny/Nj. Romney's job is in Ohio and Virginia right now.

    I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks Romney should have stopped campaigning a week before the election. That's basically saying you think he should just give up on being president because a hurricane hit a week before the election. I think that's just ridiculous and I don't even want him to win.
    That is the point, YOU DON'T EVER stop campaigning. If you stay in Ohio, you are campaigning, if you head near the chaos to reach out to people, you are campaigning. If you are like Chris Christi, you are campaigning. If you chose to do nothing, you are campaigning.

    The difference is public perception. Someone who chose to stick with a schedule, or someone who chose to break the schedule. A third time, Ohio and 5k, might as well go to California and raise many times that.

    To be blunt, if he is campaigning to be president, he'd better act like presidential material. I almost feel sorry that Chris Christi phrased Obama (assuming he is going to campaign for president 2016) while Romney stayed in Ohio. Even the Occupy Movement around NY had a better perception.

  10. #70
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    That is the point, YOU DON'T EVER stop campaigning. If you stay in Ohio, you are campaigning, if you head near the chaos to reach out to people, you are campaigning. If you are like Chris Christi, you are campaigning. If you chose to do nothing, you are campaigning.

    The difference is public perception. Someone who chose to stick with a schedule, or someone who chose to break the schedule. A third time, Ohio and 5k, might as well go to California and raise many times that.

    To be blunt, if he is campaigning to be president, he'd better act like presidential material. I almost feel sorry that Chris Christi phrased Obama (assuming he is going to campaign for president 2016) while Romney stayed in Ohio. Even the Occupy Movement around NY had a better perception.
    You just don't get it. It's more complicated than just Romney should be as nice and swell as possible. The most important part of a campaign is comparing and contrasting yourself to your opponent. If Romney goes to NY it's impossible for him to have a favorable contrast to Obama. Under those circumstances he can't attack Obama and the very fact that Obama is president makes it far too easy for Obama to overshadow Romney. What's Romney going to do? Light a candle? Say a prayer? Donate a million dollars? That's nothing compared to FEMA and Obama's leather bomber jacket. Even if there is a chance of out shining Obama the risk of going is just to high. Since Romney stayed in Ohio he's been able to stay on message with the voters that matter most and has been able to continue to attack Obama at local speeches drawing the contrast he wants while all the news shows are talking about how much Chris Christie loves Obama.

    I get it. You're not impressed with his actions. That's fine. At this point I doubt Romney really cares about your opinion as you don't live in Ohio.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 10-23-2012, 09:41 AM
  2. Is Mitt Romney a Klansman?
    By Beargryllz in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 12-20-2011, 12:57 PM
  3. [NF] NF Masquerade: What type would you want to be for a day and why?
    By Anew Leaf in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 01:51 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 05:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO