100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Mon 08/24/09 06:03 PM
|
|
I can do this stuff all day
Ok, how about defending the argument that social security is not in crisis when there is no money left in the trust? You see, the crisis is not too much out and not enough in from the average man, it's the goverment borrowing that happens every year. when you borrow billions upon billions like the last few presidents have, you tap out the trust to what it is now - a large pile of IOUs. What they mean by it running out in a few years is that at this rate, the IOUs will have washed up in that time frame. There is no money left. It is completely bankrupt. All those IOUs are is a "permit" for the government to print money... because they sure as hell aren't saving to pay back their debt. But, as usual, this is not your own logic, but a post from another. please defend it. And by the way, nowhere in that poll does it show that 80% want healthcare for all... I'd like to see that poll please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Mon 08/24/09 05:52 PM
|
|
Credit card reform legislation. Which sadly had an add on expanding gun rights. So it was not all good. <--------- would love an explanation on this one.. A) exactly how did "credit card reform" expand on gun rights? and B) how exactly is expanding gun rights bad? Read the bill. Gun rights are out of control now. We need better screening, more enforcement, less guns period. don't tell me to read the bill. You know so much, explain to me just exactly how this works.. gun rights out of control?? yeah, damn that second amendment! I already said there was an add on to the bill that allows people to carry their weapons in state parks. Interpretation is everything with that second ammendment and the current interpretation may not be correct. I'm sorry, but I think carrying in state parks should be allowed by just about anyone that owns a gun legally. That goes for any wilderness area. Ever had a black bear come rummaging through your campsite at night? Ever had one claw it's way through your buddy's tent and sniff at his sleeping bag with him inside? I sat there in horror watching, wishing I'd had a .44 mag on me at the time, just in case it went bad. Humans are very far down on the food chain, all else equal, and when I'm out in the wilderness, I'd love to be able to protect myself in any way possible. By the way, by outlawing guns, only outlaws will have guns. i don't like those laws. screening is not going to change a thing until we can handle the black market that allows those that cannot buy guns to obtain one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Palin is a psycho crazy lunatic, thank the powers that be she never got any closer to the whitehouse or this country would have surely gone down the tubes. As a woman, I found her appalling. As an intelligent human being, I found her appalling. As an entertaining subject, however, she was hysterical. Agreed. It was only funny after realizing she would not be in the whitehouse though. It's so funny how Liberals...always look to IQ...as the one and only criteria...remember this...120 I Cans...are worth alot more then 120..IQ...Clinton and Obama are proof... 
Not a liberal so who were you talking to? I'm sorry, but regardless of what you declare yourself, you always align with the left in every discussion we have had. I honestly cannot find one topic that you have agreed on that falls to the right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fine with me. He's a phony libertarian anyways. +1. total republican that acts outlandish to make his rants seem "funny" to his target audience. I admit, he does hit the nail on the head on occasion, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A short term effect is better then a no term effect, IMO. but at what cost? when it's over, we are literally back at square one while removing affordable cars from the marketplace and providing only enough employment to last through the program. We blow $3B for I'm betting half that in actual temporary gain. I can give a million reasons why it's a bad idea, but the only responses I get are that it provides jobs and income and the fact they're both very limited in scope and time gets completely left out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Swiss Menace!
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Sun 08/23/09 07:57 PM
|
|
and what is your input , here??????? or are you nothing more than a copy cat??? We all have computers and can look up articles... you add nothing! If you read the article it's probably a very good indication of their input. As Suzin said, I appreciate the article as well. I too don't always have the time to article how I feel so an article that can articulate it better than I ever could works for me. hardly. it shows the input of another. how about a statement of fact instead of just a rant. maybe an actual article from a real publication perhaps? The fact is, you cannot compare the french or canadian system to ours in any form, good or bad. The demographics are far different (check out the differences in obesity in france and america). just so you don't have to look it up, france is under 10% and we are approaching a third of our population. canada is half ours and on par at teh worldwide average. there is also the fact we are the #1 developing nation for medicines and technology. We have to upkeep this innovation. there is a cost for that. Lifestyles are far different. That is the core of all healthcare. The increased healthcare costs that come with sedentary lifestyles will have far more an impact on costs than profit-seeking. What works for one does not work for all. For every person you can find here or in France that love their system, I can find one that hates it. It's the nature that in the real world, not everyone can win all the time. Life is hard, pick up your skirt and just deal with it. I have a question for you, madison: you (well, the article) states that palin is full of crap in that there will be rationing. With the existence of scarcity, it must happen. If the number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other facilities does not change with the almost 1/6 of our population being added to the pool (and the market no longer being the decidor) then who is going to decide who gets care and who does not? A well of course the whole article is just bunk. I should find the right publication with the right facts. I give up Andrew, of course there is only one right way. I keep forgetting. No, don't give up, I love hearing the left talking points. I can give reasons why I disagree and back them up with real, logical arguments. not one person here has given me a real reason why we need this without bringing emotion into it. It's always comparison to another nation under entirely different circumstances or some other bogus argument that completely contradicts itself or is so incredibly easy to turn around and argue the opposing viewpoint in the same logic, it's laughable. I'm craving a real argument on this topic, but everywhere I look, I'm finding everyone bringing a proverbial knife to a gun fight in a battle of wits. an aside... i'd like to point out that my question was not answered...again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Sun 08/23/09 07:45 PM
|
|
The photographs, by US copyright, law belong to whomever took them.
I had a conflict about displaying my photography portfolio where someone raised a stink over me displaying the images saying that since they were her image, she owned them. She said she was going to a lawyer and two days later, threats ensued. I had a release either way but it was an irritation to say the least. if the husband held the camera, he owns them. display on the internet is completely legal provided there was no direct financial gain from them without a proper release. EDIT actually, display publicly of X-rated material is only legal with the proper 2257 paperwork kept on record. They just modified this law recently and it's stupidly biased to help large porn companies by requiring the records be kept in a location where they are accessible for 20 hours a week by drop-in inspection by the federalis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Sun 08/23/09 07:38 PM
|
|
Blah blah we give Israel 2.3 billion in aid every year, give aid to US workers and Industries and the right wing starts foaming at the mouth. What a joke. That was never brought up here and is totally off topic. I haven't seen anyone say that was needed either (because it's not). One waste of money does not justify another. And this is not aid to the worker, this is a very inefficient transfer of funds to the corporations and a couple months of work. There is no long-term benefit and no long-term help here. It's just a complete waste of money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically just another bailout for the automakers. It helps communities. for three months. I'll say it again. we need lasting growth and development, not a bunch of really, really expensive bandaids. Yes, we do need lasting growth. But...three months or more is better then no months, in my eyes. with no real benefit in the end? it's like eating a $3B ice cream cone. It was good while it lasted, but in the end, all you have is a decaying pile of ****. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what I get sick of, and it's been a strategem of the left for a while now, is to attempt to claim some kind of intellectual high ground. Saying things like, Fill-in-the-blank Republican is just not smart enough to understand this or that, and Fill-in-the-blank Democrat is the smartest person for the job, no one's got the intellectual firepower this person has. and the message rings true when they follow that rhetoric with some stained t-shirt wearing hick from the backwoods of Kentucky saying something stupid and racist. This whole game about "my dad's smarter than your dad" is just juvenile and counterproductive. For all the intellectual firepower Tim Geithner allegedly brings to the table and vast understanding of the tax code and federal regulatory authority, he still couldn't figure out how to pay his taxes for a significant part of the last decade, an offense that would have landed you or me in a federal "bone me in the a__" prison for tax evasion.. But no cellie named Art for ol' Timmy! No, this guy gets to head up the federal treasury because "he's smart". God forbid a person should provide for himself and his family. And I love the stats. The status quo kills 18,000 people a year. Does that include people that die of lung cancer from smoking or of liver failure from a lifetime of drinking whiskey? does it include all the gangbangers that can't seem to stop killing each other in those wonderful urban utopias like Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, Houston etc..? What about the glut of the urban poor who suffer from obesity and die of heart disease?.. is there anything in the "Public Option" that will stop their mothers from feeding them twinkies and cocacola with those food stamps their neighbors subsidise, rather than rice and beans, which are far more healthy and way less expensive? How many of those deaths could a "public option" have saved? what about the legions of the uninsured who drive around on $4500 sets of 22" rims but "can't afford the premiums" for insurance and who, instead, go to county hospital ER's and skip out on the bill?? what does the public option do about that?? No.. What this country needs is not another taxpayer subsidised entitlement program, but a good shot in the arm of some good old self respect, rugged individualism, and self reliance. Dependence on Government leads to shackles of economic slavery. There should be a safety net. We should not leave defenseless those who cannot fend for themselves. But for those that can provide for themselves and refuse to do so, there should be little sympathy. The safety net should not be a destination resort hammock for the perpetually irresponsible. It takes up all the room for those that could have been caught but end up falling through. I agree that there are problems with the way doctors are forced to deal with their patients and how healthcare is "delivered" (as though it were a truckload of groceries). But the manner in which the Dems are going about fixing it is completely bass-akwards. Disregarding most of the rant as hypocritical. It is hypocritical not to respect people's choices in their lives but want to "respect" their freedom to die without healthcare. Here is the problem with the whole issue. One (a person) cannot force self responsibility on others to their own standard without denying them the right to live their lives how they wish. Period. There is no way around it. Do we fight for only the fews freedoms or do we fight for all freedoms? And don't give me the crapola about the cost, we are going to pay taxes in this country forever, it will never go away. And if our tax dollars care for us, all of us, as they should, then they do what they are supposed to do. Having healthcare for all of us is in no way an infringement on anyone's rights. In no way is it socializing this country. In no way is it a hardship that we should not be willing to bear if we care about this country. no, the hypocrisy is when you say that we should provide healthcare to everyone, but then not criticize them for their lifestyles that will ultimately lead to a larger need for care. If you want a nanny state where needs like healthcare are paid for, then you need to manage risks and prevent them from living in ways that will up those costs. That is the hyricrisy. The free market ideal is as far from hypocrisy as you can get. Everyone is equal, everyone takes care of themselves. You can eat all the twinkies and drink all the coke you want while you sit your fat *** on the couch watching 7 hours of Springer if you choose - however, you must pay the consequences. On the other hand, I choose the opposite. I run 4 miles, six days a week and do what I can to stay healthy. I rarely get sick and in fact, have not called out due to actual illness in six years now (ok, one day for me but who hasn't done that lol). I eat somewhat healthy and while I do occasionally indulge on the occasional double-double and fries or a french dip from philippe's, I try my best to treat my body right. garbage in is just going to increase health risks and make you more of a healthcare liability. It's the reason comparing us to france is a moot point - they lead a far healthier lifestyle than we have so their healthcare costs are inherently cheaper. So don't go lecturing about anyone being a hypocrite but yourself. You are the one cherrypicking liberties out of a bucket - we are the ones arguing that everyone be equal. by the way, the part about forcing self-responsibilty and removing other's rights... hate to break it to you, but there always has to be a loser. by forcing some to take care of others, you are removing their liberties and forcing things on them. Arguments like that work both ways. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe, *gasp* he's just like our last president!
No way! he lied to get into office?!? Politicians never do that! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Republicans are against it?  What aren't they against at this point?
Who cares? Either way, the proposals here are going to do more than just release the thousands of prisoners. They are talking about total reform of how crimes are judged, like upping limits that determine the felony/misdemeanor line and doing much that will reduce the number of felonies thereby keeping many out of jail. The worst part for this to me, is that the call of "nonviolent" is going to be based on the conviction that landed them in jail. meaning, two prior of aggrivated assault or rape will not label them as violent if they were canned based on grand theft. It's just a stupid attempt to save their own ***** because they overspent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What we do not need is taxes to cover crap like social programs that do not do anything but keep the poor poor or pork projects paid by the feds. the states and cities should take care of those themsleves. We can easily cut a very large portion of the budget by cutting the crap. more taxes is not the answer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- pork barrel projects cost us more than social programs . I don,t care where we start we just need to start some where .. far from it. social programs are actually a very, very large portion of the yearly budget. social security, welfare, medicare, etc are all social programs i think we can do without. pork is just a drop in the bucket but it all has to go so we can start digging out of this hole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Swiss Menace!
|
|
and what is your input , here??????? or are you nothing more than a copy cat??? We all have computers and can look up articles... you add nothing! If you read the article it's probably a very good indication of their input. As Suzin said, I appreciate the article as well. I too don't always have the time to article how I feel so an article that can articulate it better than I ever could works for me. hardly. it shows the input of another. how about a statement of fact instead of just a rant. maybe an actual article from a real publication perhaps? The fact is, you cannot compare the french or canadian system to ours in any form, good or bad. The demographics are far different (check out the differences in obesity in france and america). just so you don't have to look it up, france is under 10% and we are approaching a third of our population. canada is half ours and on par at teh worldwide average. there is also the fact we are the #1 developing nation for medicines and technology. We have to upkeep this innovation. there is a cost for that. Lifestyles are far different. That is the core of all healthcare. The increased healthcare costs that come with sedentary lifestyles will have far more an impact on costs than profit-seeking. What works for one does not work for all. For every person you can find here or in France that love their system, I can find one that hates it. It's the nature that in the real world, not everyone can win all the time. Life is hard, pick up your skirt and just deal with it. I have a question for you, madison: you (well, the article) states that palin is full of crap in that there will be rationing. With the existence of scarcity, it must happen. If the number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other facilities does not change with the almost 1/6 of our population being added to the pool (and the market no longer being the decidor) then who is going to decide who gets care and who does not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Cutting Medicare?
Edited by
AndrewAV
on
Thu 08/20/09 09:04 PM
|
|
Well, medicare actually has no money right now. They have lots and lots of IOUs and a budget every year, but the trust has long since run out.
So essentially, you're not really stealing from medicare, you're just reallocating funds and defaulting on debt... to yourself. It's kind of like borrowing from a jar of quarters on your nightstand. you should put it back but you really don't have to. I personally see it as an inefficient failure. yes, there are those it helps but the ROI is a joke. as for cuts hurting everyone... it's of course true. however if they're all covered under obamacare, then there's nothing to worry about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People that don't like this administration won't find any thing good in it. Was the same way for every other president. Not sure why we bother. and people that love it will never see the faults. Then there are those of us that realize that they are still politicians just like Cheney and Bush with a different agenda and suck just as much. Besides, it's a lot more fun being in the middle watching the idiocies of both sides. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basically just another bailout for the automakers. It helps communities. for three months. I'll say it again. we need lasting growth and development, not a bunch of really, really expensive bandaids. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash for clunkers was doomed from the getgo.
Ok, here's my understanding: 1. create jobs by allocating $3B for trade-ins. 2. people flock for the money on their $1k heap. 3. the automakers have to recall workers in order to keep up with demand for the 3 months the program lasts. 4. funds run out. 5. dealers, not knowing the funds have yet run out (as paperwork takes some time to go through) keep selling cars and giving the discount, even though they may not get that money back (I'm sure congress will throw a few billion more in order to pay them anyway) 6. the spiked demand is gone, there are now thousands of workers at plants sitting idle and/or inventories are going to overinflate and they will later be let go in order to get rid of the excess. So, in other words, dealerships make a bit of money from increased sales, workers get jobs for a few months, the administration gets credit for creating those jobs, and in the end, we're back at square one with a little more money in the automakers' pockets and no more employed than we do now. We also lose an estimated 3/4 million used cars, increasing prices on these cars. Not to mention that the total additional income will not add up to the billions spent in order to make this all happen. And furthermore, the majority of those trading up are middle class or better, as they are the only ones who can get financed right now. So the american taxpayer gets the shaft for nothing. again. all in the name of being 'green.' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Bush Gone.. The Wars go ON..
|
|
two simple words is all that is needed for the problems in afghanistan, and iraq for that matter.......... NUCLEAR BOMBS.... problem solved!!! really...just nuke a couple of countries? Turn them into tropical resorts for western tourists.. gawd 
well being that muslim is not a race, it's not racism ignorance, on the other hand... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Bush Gone.. The Wars go ON..
|
|
Left wing-Right wing there is no difference except the spelling. If you stand behind what Bush did and call yourself a conservative your are nothing more than a sheeple and are no different than those who support Obama being sheeples!!!!! GWB and conservative values
I'll drink to that... |
|
|
|
|
Previous
