Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Romney, The GOP, And "Obamacare"  
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3200 times:

Somebody help me with this one. It's no secret that Romney and the Republicans are dead-set against President Obama's Health Care law, and angry over the USSC's decision to uphold it.

But look a bit deeper into the history of the Individual Mandate, and the stance Republicans have had over the years on the issue.

In 1989, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, came out with a plan that, in essence, was quite similar to Obama's plan-and, in fairness, to Romney's Massachusetts plan.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/s..._health_care_for_all_americans.pdf


In it, the Heritage Foundation proposal states, and I quote "The plan would treat all health care benefits provided by the employer as taxable income to the employee." (My italics added).

Now, to me, that sounds like the Individual Mandate that is in the President's program, and the Supreme Court said it was a tax in it's ruling.

Couple that with the fact that Romney authored a similar health care initiative in Massachusetts.

And now, in both cases, Romney and the GOP are against the very thing that they at one time proposed.

Is this a change in conservative philosophy since 1989, or is this, as I fear, simply a case of "If Obama is for it, we're against it"? And further, how can Romney be taken seriously on this issue when he's arguing against the very plan he enacted in his home state?

71 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3172 times:

Do the Tea Party people know your address ? I'd hide.  

Whatever the Heritage Institute may have said, or Romney may have done, in the past, doesn't count. Because that was then. This is now. The GOP and supporters will say anything to discredit Obama's health care act. It doesn't even have to be true.

It now seems they have more $$$ than Obama to play with, so you know where this is going: play the same message over and over again until something sinks in. This was tried, to some short term success, in Germany, way back when. And it's the same mentality, as far as I'm concerned.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2678 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3161 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Thread starter):
And now, in both cases, Romney and the GOP are against the very thing that they at one time proposed.

Is this a change in conservative philosophy since 1989, or is this, as I fear, simply a case of "If Obama is for it, we're against it"? And further, how can Romney be taken seriously on this issue when he's arguing against the very plan he enacted in his home state?

Remember that they're selling to the GOP and some independent voters one mantra and one mantra only: Obama as a one term president. So even if Obama came in favor of tax cuts, restrict abortion, declare that English be the national (and only) language, Christianity be the official religion, export all immigrants, etc., the GOP would still be against him simply because he's:
1. A Democrat
2. A black president (oh yes, don't think that people don't resent having a black president)
3. A person with a not so American name and diverse background (see birthers).

This is why I'm loving this campaign season so far: Mitt Romney is against the very thing he enacted as governor and that his party tried to enact once in the past. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that IF Romney wins the GOP repeals Obamacare and replaces it with the same thing but under a different name. Romney (and the GOP as well) has more flipflops than a house of pancakes.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3156 times:

One argument I've heard occasionally is that Romney's plan was for a state, and Obama's is for the country. Note also that another, more vociferous argument made by the right to Obama's plan is that it violates individual rights. Personally I don't hold much stock in the first argument by dint of the second, because if in fact rights are rights, then it shouldn't matter who's infringing upon those rights.

User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 2):
2. A black president (oh yes, don't think that people don't resent having a black president)
3. A person with a not so American name and diverse background (see birthers).

I think people underrate, not overrate, those two points. I really do. The nation's demographics are changing rapidly. White births are no longer above 50% in the U.S.; by 2040, the white population will make up less than 50% of the population. And that scares a lot of conservative whites. I think in their mind, an Obama-a black man with a non-traditional name, was something that they were thinking would happen 30 or 40 years from now, not in 2008.

And the fact that when you tell some conservatives that, they get madder than hell, tells me you hit a nerve when you bring it up.

It's not an issue with all conservatives, but with a majority of them.

Oh, I am white, and that future doesn't bother me. I know why it bothers them, but I don't get it.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 4):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 2):
2. A black president (oh yes, don't think that people don't resent having a black president)
3. A person with a not so American name and diverse background (see birthers).

I think people underrate, not overrate, those two points. I really do.

It's also overrused obnoxiously in inappropriate circumstances where no one is racist... very annoying. Not saying there aren't racists but it pisses me off when someone will just slip that into any conversation automatically... get a logical argument



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):
It's also overrused obnoxiously in inappropriate circumstances where no one is racist... very annoying. Not saying there aren't racists but it pisses me off when someone will just slip that into any conversation automatically... get a logical argument

Racism is illogical to begin with, and sometimes logic doesn't suffice. In this case, when talking about many conservatives, it is quite literally a true statement?

Remember all the racists signs that showed up at Tea Bagger rallies back in '08? How about all the alleged "foot in mouth" statements since the President took office, where conservative officeholders have invoked racists words and images?

That's a sure sign that it's a problem in the GOP.

But back to the point. How can anyone take Romney and the GOP seriously when they're bucking positions that they've held for so long, simply because the other guy used it successfully? We learned in '04, with the Kerry campaign, that you can't win simply by saying "anyone but -----". You have to be FOR something.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 6):
Tea Bagger

Stopped reading at this point. Not a Tea Party member but really, shy away from name calling



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
Stopped reading at this point. Not a Tea Party member but really, shy away from name calling

Tea Bagger bothers you. OK, fine. It's pretty harmful but against some things those people have called the President. But it shouldn't stop any conversation on a relevant topic.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3130 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 8):
Tea Bagger bothers you.

Doesn't bother me personally but it's along the lines of me talking about the President and slipping in that he's a "socialist..." people stop taking me seriously and it just detracts from the conversation

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 8):
It's pretty harmful but against some things those people have called the President.
All Tea Party members? That's generalization. Plus, does that mean we should resort to name calling because they do?

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 8):
But it shouldn't stop any conversation on a relevant topic.

But that's what happens when name calling goes around. Happens with the other side too.

But anyway, on topic, I wouldn't even mind so much if the GOP's positions radically changed as long as they had a viable plan to go along with the repeal. We will see if the public buys all that in November...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3123 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 9):

But anyway, on topic, I wouldn't even mind so much if the GOP's positions radically changed as long as they had a viable plan to go along with the repeal. We will see if the public buys all that in November...

I was watching Jon Stewart the night of the USSC decision, and Romney pretty much said he was for most everything in the plan the president has. That's why I don't understand his problem with it.

But if he does have something different, he should spell it out, and do it now. Because, right now, his campaign is fumbling and bumbling this one, and it's hurting his image. Bring out a plan of your own, Mitt, let the American people decide.

If he doesn't, the public won't just buy it on faith that he has a solution.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 10):
I was watching Jon Stewart the night of the USSC decision, and Romney pretty much said he was for most everything in the plan the president has. That's why I don't understand his problem with it.

Actually I think I saw an article where most citizens agreed with the ACA... the notable exception (and where I think Romney disagrees mostly with nowadays) is the individual mandate. It's a tough decision, I try and stay in the center and I value personal liberty in most cases, so should we force people to buy this insurance? I don't like forcing anything really.

Kinda off topic, but I think most people would agree with a tax/mandatory fee/whatever you want to call it that EVERYONE needs to buy that covers life threatening injuries/life and limb kinda cases... basically how the ER works now where anyone can go in, insurance or not. That way you don't have people dying in the streets or going bankrupt over an illness yet it allows freedom to purchase insurance or not for routine visits and all. Might be some kinks, but that sounds like a good compromise and more constitutional for the people that are questioning the individual mandate (despite the SCOTUS ruling on it)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12881 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3069 times:

It seems to me that Romney is adjusting his opinion to get the votes and money from the most vocal fiscal conservative and 'tea party' voters. Many may not understand a 'mandate' or 'penalty' but they sure don't want to pay more and indeed want less taxes. SCOTUS C.J. Roberts declared the penalty a 'tax', something Congress can vote for and now vote against, Republicans hate any new/expanded taxes at the core beliefs and something that Romney can call a tax that Obama created and rise to pay for the program.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3063 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12):
It seems to me that Romney is adjusting his opinion to get the votes and money from the most vocal fiscal conservative and 'tea party' voters.

Maybe I'm being faceus, but maybe Romney was being more right-leaning during the primaries and now that he is the nominee, he can afford to be more moderate. Who was it on this board that said it when Romney got the nomination...? "And thus begins the journey to the center..." Something about becoming more moderate... may be true



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1647 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3060 times:

I agree that Romney changes his posture to fit the mood at the time. I really cannot stand him. Problem is I hate Holder and others Obama nominated more. So he will get my vote even though I cant stand him. As far as the heath care plan Obama made a few mistakes he tried to ram 3000 pages of it down our throats when no one even read it. Mistake number one. I will admit a few things of it are popular. Maybe they can keep the popular things and modify it. If Romney gets in he will have to do that. Since he did that in Mass anyway I think he would be open to it. Sorry but Obama does not get my vote as long as he keeps Holder and Napolitano on board. I think he knows at least Holder is a drain on his campaign and he kept him so be it.


NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3041 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
I try and stay in the center and I value personal liberty in most cases, so should we force people to buy this insurance?

We already do that. State's force people to buy auto insurance and home owners insurance. Then why the problem with heath insurance?

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12):
SCOTUS C.J. Roberts declared the penalty a 'tax', something Congress can vote for and now vote against,

They'll need a super-majority in the Senate to over-ride a Presidential Veto on this one, if Obama does win a 2nd term. And that's unlikely. Democrats aren't going to over-ride it.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12):
Republicans hate any new/expanded taxes at the core beliefs

Yes, even if it bankrupts the country. They didn't seem to mind when Reagan raised taxes something like 11 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):

Maybe I'm being faceus, but maybe Romney was being more right-leaning during the primaries and now that he is the nominee, he can afford to be more moderate.

He's in a bind on this, and on many issues. The far-right base of the GOP isn't thrilled with his upcoming nomination, even though he has pandered way to the right. If he goes back to the center, he'll alienate them, and also be accused of flip-flopping once again on the issue.

He's almost in a no-win situation on this issue, and many others, because he's painted himself into a right-wing corner.

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 14):
Maybe they can keep the popular things and modify it.

Which I think will happen in Obama's second term, and it's what the GOP should be pushing, instead of the insanity and outright confusion that would be caused by just repealing the whole thing. Romney's plan was similar, so he can't hate it that much.


User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1647 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3029 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 15):
Which I think will happen in Obama's second term, and it's what the GOP should be pushing, instead of the insanity and outright confusion that would be caused by just repealing the whole thing. Romney's plan was similar, so he can't hate it that much.

Oh s much as I hate Romney I hate an Obama second term even worse.



NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11128 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3022 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):
It's also overrused obnoxiously in inappropriate circumstances where no one is racist...

Why, then, did no one, NOT ONE PERSON, bat an eye when McCain was nominated for president? Old white man born in Panama with a Western name? If it does not bother anyone, then no one should be bothered by a half-black (that means half-white) man born in the United States to an American mother. Add to that, the fact that he had boot straps to pull himself up by and became a Constitutional scholar. Travesty!!

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 16):
s much as I hate Romney I hate an Obama second term even worse.

Lower unemployment rates and stability. Oh, the horror!!

Back on topic: I have been trying to figure out why the right hates Romneycare so much. They were for it before they were against. But, like Mitch McConnell proudly declared: They want to make him a one-term president. That is their only goal. They don't want jobs or lower the deficit or keep terrorists out. They just want the black guy with the foreign name out of the White House.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineNewark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3018 times:

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 14):
As far as the heath care plan Obama made a few mistakes he tried to ram 3000 pages of it down our throats when no one even read it.

It shouldn't be surprising, or even especially worrisome, that a bill addressing a hydra-headed issue such as health care is long. And the process of passage took months, with many amendments to please various people (remember Bart Stupak?)


User currently offlinecat3dual From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2963 times:

Any dirt on Romney or the Heritage Foundation's record is of no consequence today, unfortunately. Even if we could definitively prove that Willard performed an abortion on the fetus of Jesus Christ himself, rank and file conservatives have been programmed for three years that Obama must be a one term President and as such must be granted as few victories as humanly possible at any cost.

Trust that these people believe every problem we have as a nation is Obama's fault. As far as they are concerned, the world started 3.5 years ago and no events occurred prior to that; even the mention that any events occurred before 1/20/2009 is met with a defense that eludes to some sort of undignified blasphemy.

As of now, we have a CEO backed by billions in the private sector's first attempt at a hostile takeover of Washington vs. the guy they have sabotaged as often as possible. If we embark on yet another Presidency so terrible that the right wing needs to establish complex mental blocks in order to maintain their allegiance, we are screwed.

Obama is not perfect by any means but a failed governor whose cronies consist of big business' most elite is the type of person the founding fathers railed against running this nation. Big business have enough purchasing power in Washington and it needs to be scaled back, not ramped up.

If Romney is elected, we'd be lucky he left us like he left MA, with a 65% disapproval rating and a lot of pissed off and broke citizens; if we are unlucky we usher in a new age of Inverse Fascism (where corporations control the government) with caste system tendencies.

[Edited 2012-07-06 08:25:23]

User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

Quoting cat3dual (Reply 19):

Fantastic post. The only comforting thing is that even with all this corporate money rolling in, Romney's chances of winning are still very slim. There is only a handful of battleground states. Romney would have to win all of them to be elected, and he's not going to win them all. The President has a better ground game than Romney, despite the latter's corporate millions.

Wonder what Mitt will do for a living after he loses this time?


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2938 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 3):
One argument I've heard occasionally is that Romney's plan was for a state, and Obama's is for the country.

Which is the silliest argument.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 20):
Romney's chances of winning are still very slim.

Unfortunately, i think that his chances are much better than "slim"

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 20):

Wonder what Mitt will do for a living after he loses this time?

Maybe he can retire breeding Olympic Dressage horses.. you know.. like the rest of America does.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6485 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2927 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
It's a tough decision, I try and stay in the center and I value personal liberty in most cases, so should we force people to buy this insurance?

The funny thing to me in this whole debate is that it's a total flip-flop on the idea of taking personal responsibility. Normally, conservatives very strongly embrace people taking responsibility for their lives. In this case, Obamacare requires people to be responsible and get health insurance. However, conservatives seem to abhor this and rather have us stay with the current system where tens of millions of people freeload by using ER services and never paying for them. Guess who then gets the bill?

So in reality, the current system is a total welfare system that encourages people to freeload and not be responsible. This is why back in the late 80's conservative places like Heritage Foundation embraced the idea of the mandate.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 21):
.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 20):
Romney's chances of winning are still very slim.

Unfortunately, i think that his chances are much better than "slim"

I disagree. If you look at any electoral map right now, there's very few states in play: Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Virginia, NC and Colorado.

Romney would have to win all of them, and the chances of that happening aren't good. In Ohio, you have a very unpopular Governor who has lit a fire under liberals; in Wisconsin, even though Walker won his recall, most of those people said they would vote for Obama; Romney's opposition to the auto bailout is going to cost him Michigan.

So he's got problems. Obama is going to pound him in Michigan on the auto bailout, which probably saved thousands of Michigan jobs; Obama is going to tie him to John Kasich in Ohio, and Walker in Wisconsin. Virginia is in play, but is turning into a Blue state with each passing year. He's even struggling in North Carolina, even as that state passed an anti-gay marriage amendment.

He can win Ohio and Florida, and still not win the election.

Unless the economy collapses, and that's not likely to happen, as most indicators are still slowly improving, he's going to be hard-pressed to win all the toss-ups.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2918 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 22):
So in reality, the current system is a total welfare system that encourages people to freeload and not be responsible. This is why back in the late 80's conservative places like Heritage Foundation embraced the idea of the mandate.

So, the real reason, in the end, they're against it, is because the black guy with the funny name got it passed? I guess that answers my original question.

The Republicans haven't learned the lesson from '04: you can't win simply by being against someone.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):

Actually I think I saw an article where most citizens agreed with the ACA... the notable exception (and where I think Romney disagrees mostly with nowadays) is the individual mandate. It's a tough decision, I try and stay in the center and I value personal liberty in most cases, so should we force people to buy this insurance? I don't like forcing anything really.

Because otherwise the whole system doesn't work.

It's absolutely required or the system cannot work. If you can literally buy health insurance on the way to the hospital and cancel it when you are discharged, then that will drive premiums way up, not down. The only way to make it work is to have everyone paying in.

The GOP answer to this was "Privatize!" So they came up with the individual mandate.

What Obama has done over and over in his term is basically propose Conservative/GOP legislation almost verbatim. It is very obvious that he is out to show that the GOP is not interested in politics or governance, they are interested in ousting Obama. The most obvious example of this was when Michelle Obama pointed out that Americans need to eat healthier, the Right (and I mean pretty much every right-wing pundit) exploded. They went from calling her fat to claiming that grease and salt were healthy to accusing her of trying to further a nanny state. I'd like to see Obama point out that the sky is blue just to see the GOP call it red.

And the proof is in the pudding. When you ask them what their plan is: they don't have one. It's just "not Obama's." Sometimes, they even claim that there is nothing wrong with U.S. healthcare, even though every piece of objective evidence proves that this is not the case.

It's beyond politics, IMO. I think that at this point it comes down to sheer anti-American disloyalty. Hating the President so much that you are willing to scuttle the country.


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2431 posts, RR: 7
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2934 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 8):
I wouldn't even mind so much if the GOP's positions radically changed as long as they had a viable plan to go along with the repeal.

   Exactly! Going back to the old status quo isn't going to cut it. Tell us how you are going to fix the stuff in the current plan that's bad, save the good parts and move forward.



Quoting stratosphere (Reply 16):
Oh s much as I hate Romney I hate an Obama second term even worse.

That "lesser of two evils" strategy has ben employed by quite a few in the last several election cycles.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 20):
Romney's chances of winning are still very slim

Have to disagree with you there. We'l have to wait til November to find out


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6485 posts, RR: 24
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2947 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 24):
The Republicans haven't learned the lesson from '04: you can't win simply by being against someone.

Given the current economy, they might be able to pull it off this time. Granted, they'll quickly implode once in office.


User currently offlinewingman From St. Vincent and the Grenadines, joined May 1999, 2099 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

Again the utter hypocrisy, stupidity, and outright control of our electoral process by the mdeia and corporate money is simply laughable. The United States is far and away the most corrupt country on Earth. But the Electorate just doesn't see it anymore because the corruption itself has been legitimized. The most dangerous consequence of this is that very few people read or seek the truth during election cycles, which these days is essentially every day.

Obama proposed a Republican-designed health care plan, enacted by Democrats in Congress while being opposed by Republicans themselves...and then had it ruled Constitutional by a Republican SCOTUS. That in and of itself is dumbfounding. The very essence of the plan is the most cherished of Republican principles. IT FORCES FREELOADERS TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN HEALTHCARE! Whaaaat?!

Now Republicans say the plan is going to drive up the cost of healthcare to unmanageable heights...as if none of them has seen a cost index of US Healthcare in the past 20 years (hint: the cost has been exploding on an exponential basis for decades, under Republican and Democratic presidents alike). Absolutely nothing will stop this meteoric rise in expenses until we confront some very ugly truths in this country. Chief amongst them is the fact Americans are the most disgustingly obese people in the world. They eat 100 dripping fat hamburgers for breakfast every day for 50 years and then have heart attacks and get diabetes. And then Merck and Glaxo are expected to fix their problems. This leads me to a second conclusion, not only are Americans the fattest people in the Milky Way, they are very likely also the dumbest.

I'm glad some of these fat ass morons will have to pay for insurance. If Republicans want to continue to reward idiotic behavior by paying for other people's healthcare well I guess they can get Romney into office to repeal the very plan he originally designed and enacted in Massachusetts. The irony is quite sinply delicious. Add eight slices of cheese, twelve strips of bacon, lay your spreading haunches on the sofa, and watch the hypocrisy unfold.


User currently offlinecat3dual From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2936 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 28):
This leads me to a second conclusion, not only are Americans the fattest people in the Milky Way, they are very likely also the dumbest.

While I certainly agree with your assessment of the situation, know that we aren't all stupid. Avoid gross generalizations and perhaps your message would resonate more.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 27):
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 24):
The Republicans haven't learned the lesson from '04: you can't win simply by being against someone.

Given the current economy, they might be able to pull it off this time. Granted, they'll quickly implode once in office.

Come the fall, the question will be boiled down to this: do you want to take a chance on Romney, and bring back basically the same policies that nearly put us into a Depression, or are you going to go with the President, who, by his own admission, is saying the recovery isn't going as fast as he wants, but that we ARE a lot better off than we were this time 4 years ago.

That's how it's going to be framed by the Obama camp, in the end.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):
It's also overrused obnoxiously in inappropriate circumstances where no one is racist...

Why, then, did no one, NOT ONE PERSON, bat an eye when McCain was nominated for president? Old white man born in Panama with a Western name?

I didn't say there weren't racists, I just said the race thing is way overused. If we're talking about birthers then yeah, racism definitely comes into play. But when someone is disagreeing with his policies for some reason or another, someone usually pulls out the race card. BS

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):

Actually I think I saw an article where most citizens agreed with the ACA... the notable exception (and where I think Romney disagrees mostly with nowadays) is the individual mandate. It's a tough decision, I try and stay in the center and I value personal liberty in most cases, so should we force people to buy this insurance? I don't like forcing anything really.

Because otherwise the whole system doesn't work.

That's why I suggested forcing insurance for only ER visits but everything else is optional. I think it's a balance between liberty and having insurance there for the unforeseen ER visits. I see it different that buying car insurance because you can choose to drive or not, but you really can't choose to live or not (minus suicide.)

Should something be done to protect life, limbs, and eyesight? Yes. But running a slight cold or having allergies? Get your own insurance. Just my opinion



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
But when someone is disagreeing with his policies for some reason or another, someone usually pulls out the race card. BS

In many cases, yes. But how can one reconcile the fact that the GOP, as almost a whole, is now vehemently against policies that THEY THEMSELVES have been supporting for years? What's playing a part in that? Simply wanting to defeat the other guy, or does it go deeper?

How come so many conservatives make sure to mention Mr. Obama's middle name, Hussein, at every chance they get? Clearly it's to get a reaction that this guy has a name that isn't as "American" as some would like. What doe most people in the U.S. think of when they think of Hussein? Saddam, no doubt. That connotation is quite deliberate.

Google example after example of GOP politicians making racists remarks, or circulating racist emails concerning the President. If it had happened once, that can be overlooked. But it's happened time after time after time since Barack Obama began running for president. Usually a person's first reaction is how they really feel. If that's the case, then yes, racism is alive and well throughout the GOP. It isn't an isolated incident.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
I think it's a balance between liberty and having insurance there for the unforeseen ER visits

Someone is gonna have to explain to me how this is a gross violation of personal liberty, because I don't buy it. You are required to have auto and homeowners insurance, and I don't see a huge uproar over that. I'll raise the
   on that one because I think it's a load of BS.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 32):
Simply wanting to defeat the other guy, or does it go deeper?

I don't know, neither do you. It's not automatic racism. Again, there are racists, but I see the race card being pulled out wayyyy too much.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 32):
How come so many conservatives make sure to mention Mr. Obama's middle name, Hussein, at every chance they get?

How come you have people on this board calling Romney "Willard" all the time? Because it sounds funny? No one will ever accuse these people of being racists since Romney is a white American but name calling is name calling. I could go that direction and say "Willard" sounds like an old fashioned white name and people are being racism against him, but that is a dumb argument and I'm just using the race card just because

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 32):
If that's the case, then yes, racism is alive and well throughout the GOP. It isn't an isolated incident.

I'm not arguing that and that racism should be called out. But crying racism because of a disagreement in policies or lack of a better argument is lazy and ignorant. I've seen the race card pulled out of the blue many times when race wasn't even implied or mentioned

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 32):
gross violation of personal liberty

Well, simple, you're making someone buy something against there will. I know there is a time and a place for that though, but I'd like to see personal liberty in most cases. I've already said I think there should be mandatory insurance/tax/whatever for ER visits and cases involving life, limb, or eyesight. They are things you can't avoid. Insurance covering everything goes a bit far IMO. I never go to the doctor when I have a mild cold, many do, that is a choice (unlike ER visits, taking away the option of letting someone just die.) So I think we're arguing the same thing, just to different extents

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 32):
required to have auto

No you are not because not everyone drives, it's a choice to. And to legally drive, you need insurance to at least cover unforeseen crashes (which I compare to unforeseen ER visits and threats to health.) You can choose to have insurance cover dings and scratches OR NOT, just like I think healthcare should be--mandatory to cover life, limb, and eyesight, but optional for lesser things like having a cold.

I hope I'm explaining that correctly, I see it as a fair compromise between the 2 sides. You may not agree with it, a conservative may not, but it's in the middle, what a compromise should be.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 32):
homeowners insurance, and I don't see a huge uproar over that

I did not touch on homeowners insurance because I am not familiar with it (don't have a house) and am about to take a nap, but even though it's in place, I may not agree with it just like I don't agree with complete healthcare, uproar or not. I try to avoid debating like that... "well ________ is ok because ______ happened!" or "he/she can say/do ___________ because that candidate on the other side said/did __________." Load of crap.



tl;dr yes there is racism, I think the race card is overused. Also, I think lifesaving healthcare should be imposed but not complete healthcare and I see that as balancing the welfare of people and personal liberty



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecat3dual From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2844 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33):
How come you have people on this board calling Romney "Willard" all the time? Because it sounds funny? No one will ever accuse these people of being racists since Romney is a white American but name calling is name calling. I could go that direction and say "Willard" sounds like an old fashioned white name and people are being racism against him, but that is a dumb argument and I'm just using the race card just because

Don't think there's racism? Why, then, does GOP darling Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal not use his real name, Piyush? I'll tell you why. Because the racist, white Republican voter in Louisiana wouldn't vote for someone named Piyush Jindal. Too brown. Bobby is much more "white" sounding.


User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2836 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33):

How come you have people on this board calling Romney "Willard" all the time?

I think the comparison is far-fetched. Willard may not be a perfectly normal name, but it is an Anglo-Saxon name. Hussein is an Arabic/Islamic name in the minds of most people. The use of Hussein is used to try and convince people that somehow Obama isn't American enough; or that he's actually a Muslim. It obviously works, because a large percentage of conservatives still believe, to this day, that he isn't an American citizen, and believe that he is Muslim.

It's a racist play, pure and simple.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2800 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
That's why I suggested forcing insurance for only ER visits but everything else is optional.

So then the only people paying for insurance are those with chronic conditions. Great, a "tax" on the chronically ill! Fantastic!

When you, MD90, a healthy man in his early 20's, figure that you can get away on emergency-only insurance, but then (god forbid) next week start noticing that you are waking up with daily back pain and eventually get a diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (which can be very effectively treated with an $1,800/mo drug called "ENBREL"), you suddenly buy better coverage. But because they can't deny you for your pre-existing condition, the only people with such insurance will be those with pre-existing conditions.

Your insurance will wind up costing $2,000/mo. And don't tell me that you take care of yourself, so you won't get sick. The diseases that hit young people are not lifestyle-dependent.

If *EVERYBODY* has to pay in, then it winds up being a lot cheaper.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8875 posts, RR: 40
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2781 times:

Romney has defended RomneyCare on states rights grounds. It's a legitimate argument and he is correct about it.

However, it is still hypocritical for a Republican even on those grounds.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Quoting cat3dual (Reply 34):
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 35):

I don't really think I'm getting anywhere, I never once denied any racism, I just said the race card is used too much and also the people calling Romney "Willard" are just as back as the people mentioning "Hussein." But that is off-topic and I am guilty of derailing it, so sorry. Agree to disagree

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
So then the only people paying for insurance are those with chronic conditions. Great, a "tax" on the chronically ill! Fantastic!

No I meant the population would ALL pay for ALL emergency visits. Insurance would cover the big stuff, the ruin your life and bankrupt you kind of stuff

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
When you, MD90, a healthy man in his early 20's, figure that you can get away on emergency-only insurance, but then (god forbid) next week start noticing that you are waking up with daily back pain and eventually get a diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (which can be very effectively treated with an $1,800/mo drug called "ENBREL"), you suddenly buy better coverage. But because they can't deny you for your pre-existing condition, the only people with such insurance will be those with pre-existing conditions.

Your insurance will wind up costing $2,000/mo. And don't tell me that you take care of yourself, so you won't get sick. The diseases that hit young people are not lifestyle-dependent.

I don't know, I was thinking about some kind of catastrophic cap. It wouldn't be just the people who end up getting sick that would pay in, it would be everyone. I'm just saying for people that have a common cold or something, the realistic choice is to suck it up or get insurance to cover that. By no means do I want people dying on the street or going bankrupt over ankylosing spondylitis



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Thread starter):

In it, the Heritage Foundation proposal states, and I quote "The plan would treat all health care benefits provided by the employer as taxable income to the employee." (My italics added).

McCain was going on that track also - with a $6,000 per family handout.

Employer provided nanny care has turned into a bit of a freak. It is a tax free ride for both the employer and employee at a time when out debt says we can no longer afford it. The tax free ride needs to end.

And it is the most overpriced health care around because of this queer tax free ride.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
Not a Tea Party member but really, shy away from name calling

Odd that people are sensitive to this term. They have no problem calling moderates "socialists" or Democrats "dims" but some really go into spasms at the mention of the Lipton term.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 10):
But if he does have something different, he should spell it out, and do it now.

First he needs to figure out what he would do. All he knows right now is that he wants to be President and can pull in the cash to help make it happen.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
so should we force people to buy this insurance?

If you really want to bring down the costs and also free up the ER for when YOU really need it then you would go for core health care via a public option. Core care - maybe a ward, not a private room because you want it.

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 14):
As far as the heath care plan Obama made a few mistakes he tried to ram 3000 pages of it down our throats when no one even read it.

Regardless of the number of pages that are devoted to the actual reform there will be a lot of pages that address existing laws and regulations. The Act cannot just float out there on it's own, you need to define all interactions with other laws and regs.

Maybe we need to take out those connecting paragraphs, clean out the white space and single space the remainder. What would we get? 50 page? 100 pages?

But 3,000 pages sounds a lot better when attacking the act.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 22):
The funny thing to me in this whole debate is that it's a total flip-flop on the idea of taking personal responsibility.

Telling Americans to take personal responsibility with their health insurance is like telling teenagers not to have sex.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
If you can literally buy health insurance on the way to the hospital and cancel it when you are discharged, then that will drive premiums way up, not down.

Which is why I'm in favor of a core public program paid for with taxes. It solves that problem, takes the burden of nanny care off the employer and frees up some of the load in the ERs because clinics can be used at a far lower cost.

Quoting wingman (Reply 28):
The United States is far and away the most corrupt country on Earth.

And the former President of France has just had his house and office searched for what reason?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
That's why I suggested forcing insurance for only ER visits but everything else is optional.

I believe that we can reduce ER visits significantly by having local clinics for wellness visits and for visits for an illness when needed. Preventive care can work, and it can reduce the ER burdens.

When you have a 4 hour wait in the ER you find it pretty easy to understand the need for major reforms. I went through more than a few of those long waits when my wife was having chemo. Her immune system was at zero, but SOP was for her to wait right there with everyone else, regardless of how contagious they were. Putting her next to the wrong person in the waiting room could have added another 5 days to her stays, or killed her. BTW, she had to go through ER for an admission when she went south after the Dr's office hours and there was no isolation rooms available.

As Doc will tell you, everyone reading this board could be in the same situation. Her leukemia was ALL, but there were all kinds going through the ER.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 32):
How come so many conservatives make sure to mention Mr. Obama's middle name, Hussein, at every chance they get?

Because it ties his to "Arabs". You know, those people in the middle east with a lot of pigment in their skin.

That is something that I have thought about for a long time. It is very common for people in that part of the world to have that extra pigment because of their exposure to the sun being greater than, say an Irishman. Same with the northern areas of the Med, although we tend to say they have "olive" skin.

So it stands to reason that Jesus would have had a dark skin, not the pale skin and red hair we sometimes see in paintings. But a dark skin that is protective from the sun. And might be sufficient to have him called unpleasant names in parts of this country - including the strongly religious areas.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33):
How come you have people on this board calling Romney "Willard" all the time?

It's his first name and we can call him that without being nasty, or hateful.

Quoting cat3dual (Reply 34):
Don't think there's racism? Why, then, does GOP darling Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal not use his real name, Piyush? I'll tell you why. Because the racist, white Republican voter in Louisiana wouldn't vote for someone named Piyush Jindal. Too brown. Bobby is much more "white" sounding.

He could have, of course, taken the easy way out and have his name changed. Maybe he'll consider Willard if Romney wins.  


User currently offlinemdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4124 posts, RR: 9
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2735 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):

Too bad this forum doesn't have a "Like" button. Spot on. It's just so appalling how many people are ripping this whole health care business (including my fellow medical professionals) without actually understanding it.



"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 39):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7):
Not a Tea Party member but really, shy away from name calling

Odd that people are sensitive to this term. They have no problem calling moderates "socialists" or Democrats "dims" but some really go into spasms at the mention of the Lipton term.

Sigh... just because one side does it doesn't make it right for the other side to do it. Couldn't you say that Tea Party members say "socialists" or "dims" because they're being called "Tea Baggers?" Do we really have to trace back and find out which side really called the other side a name first or can we just declare it immature/flamebaiting on both sides? The guy calling people "dims" is just as bad as the guy calling people "Tea Bagger" regardless of who said what first.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 39):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 33):
How come you have people on this board calling Romney "Willard" all the time?

It's his first name and we can call him that without being nasty, or hateful.

...you can say the same thing about "Barrack Hussein Obama..." or no, because he's black with a "foreign sounding name?" Cut me a break, you can't call Romney "Willard" (when it's obviously making fun of him since he ALWAYS goes by "Mitt," "Mitt Romney," or "Romney") and then get mad at someone for mentioning the President's middle name. Double standard if I've ever heard one

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 39):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
That's why I suggested forcing insurance for only ER visits but everything else is optional.

I believe that we can reduce ER visits significantly by having local clinics for wellness visits and for visits for an illness when needed. Preventive care can work, and it can reduce the ER burdens.

Well this makes sense too, kinda changes the dynamic a bit. Have to rethink about my position now

Edit: "rethinking my position" doesn't mean I'm just going to find reasons to justify my old one, I actually may change my positions after thinking a while

[Edited 2012-07-07 08:55:22]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2667 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 37):
Romney has defended RomneyCare on states rights grounds. It's a legitimate argument and he is correct about it.

And the Supreme Court said that it IS constitutional and can be applied throughout the US as well. So its not no longer a question of it being a right that ONLY a state. The USCC has given that right to the Federal Government.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 37):
Romney has defended RomneyCare on states rights grounds. It's a legitimate argument and he is correct about it.

However, it is still hypocritical for a Republican even on those grounds.

First off, State's Rights, especially the way conservatives want to define it, died on April 9th, 1865, when Lee surrendered to Grant. The idea that the states are sovereign, and that the national government is irrelevant, died when the Confederacy died. At that point, we became a nation, not a collection of individual fiefdoms, so to say. States' Rights hasn't existed for almost 150 years.

Secondly, it doesn't matter how Romney defended it. It's still been upheld as Constitutional, so that's simply splitting hairs to score some cheap political points.

And how is it "hypothetical" to Republicans, when they're the ones who came up with the idea in the first place?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29706 posts, RR: 59
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2647 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 2):
2. A black president (oh yes, don't think that people don't resent having a black president)

Actually Morgan Freeman is on record as saying Obama isn't black because his mama was white.....

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 6):
Remember all the racists signs that showed up at Tea Bagger rallies back in '08?

The vast majory of which where laters shows to have been carried by Democrats planted in the ralleys to "show" the TP members where racist.....It's a lie but what else can you suspect from the Obama camp.

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 14):
Obama made a few mistakes he tried to ram 3000 pages of it down our throats when no one even read it. Mistake number one.

Big mistake, and one that needs to be repeated over and over again. Nancy Pelosi saying that we needed to pass it to find out what was in it. It was a sad day for democracy.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 15):
State's force people to buy auto insurance and home owners insurance. Then why the problem with heath insurance

The state doesn't force me to buy a car or a house though that would require the insurance. Suicide under the ObamaCare regieme is the only remedy for the insurance requirement and even then they will try and keep that from being successful.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Add to that, the fact that he had boot straps to pull himself up by and became a Constitutional scholar.

He is a scholar in only his own mind. One of the big reasons I will never never ever for for him is his ignorance of the 2nd amendment. I am looking for that to be his next big war against civil rights.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 26):
Going back to the old status quo isn't going to cut it

It was a hello of a lot better and made more fiscal sense then the hell we are hell we are headed when the provisions that where intential held off until after the election start kicking in. Ever notice the ones that will actually cost money where timed not to kick in until after this election?

Quoting ER757 (Reply 26):
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 20):
Romney's chances of winning are still very slim

Have to disagree with you there. We'l have to wait til November to find out

I hope Obama gets thrown out this fall. I can only hope americans wise up to what he actually is, and it aint pretty.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 30):
Come the fall, the question will be boiled down to this: do you want to take a chance on Romney, and bring back basically the same policies that nearly put us into a Depression, or are you going to go with the President, who, by his own admission, is saying the recovery isn't going as fast as he wants, but that we ARE a lot better off than we were this time 4 years ago.

That's how it's going to be framed by the Obama camp, in the end.

And like anything else by the Obama camp it is a lie. Obama has held back the economic recovery of this country. Condemened our medical industry to mediocrity.

It will be a very long for years if this constitution and civil rights ignoring politician gets a second term.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2644 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 44):
Obama has held back the economic recovery of this country.

Tell me, who has held up any progress on economic and jobs legislation since Obama took office?

The Republican Party?

Obama hasn't held anything up. The Conservatives have done that, with their 4-year tantrum.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29706 posts, RR: 59
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2635 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 45):
The Republican Party?

Obama hasn't held anything up. The Conservatives have done that, with their 4-year tantrum.

Would those be the same conservaties that didn't have control of the congress the last two years of bushes term and the first two years of Obama?

Would those be the same conservaties that had Maxine Waters kill their investigation into improper lending Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac as soon as the democrafts took office, two years before those two lending groups had their little Crisise?

Would that be the same house Republicans that over the last two years have sent multiple pieces of good economic legistation to the Senate only to have Harry Reid's cabal quash it before it can even be heard.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 37):

Romney has defended RomneyCare on states rights grounds.

But he keeps forgetting that he brought in a mandatory insurance system.

And his mandate was a pretty hefty tax increase, if we are to believe the GOP leaders these days.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 37):
It's a legitimate argument and he is correct about it.

It really doesn't matter just how much of a State's Rights issue it is. At some point you need to look at the details and compare them to ObamaCare. Oooops!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Couldn't you say that Tea Party members say "socialists" or "dims" because they're being called "Tea Baggers?"

But you can get in trouble for using the T** B****** term, where socialist and dims are perfectly fine on this board. It seems the TPers are very sensitive people (which is probably why they like to wrap themselves up in the flag) and they file complaints if you use the T** B****** term. :—I

Quoting L-188 (Reply 44):
Nancy Pelosi saying that we needed to pass it to find out what was in it.

Considering all the changes that were going on at the time it did take a vote before we had a final version. If the vote had been held a week later than there probably would have been some politicians who would have been able to add their thoughts.

BTW, it would be folly to believe this Bill was the first and only bill that had changes and negotiations up to the last minute.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 44):
is his ignorance of the 2nd amendment.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 44):
Ever notice the ones that will actually cost money where timed not to kick in until after this election?

Pre-existing for kids has already kicked in, as has leaving you kids on your policy until they are 26. New standards on how much of a premium is use to pay for care has also kicked in and some policy holders have already received a refund check.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 44):
And like anything else by the Obama camp it is a lie.

And everything from the Romney is the truth?         

Tell us another one about the magic underwear.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 44):
Obama has held back the economic recovery of this country.

He held back the economy from the disastrous tail spin it was in. You obviously forget just how bad things were in the Bush II end game. DOW cut in half, 750,000 Americans pushed out of work each MONTH.

And you are happy to vote for Bush III. Why? So things can fall apart again?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 44):
Condemened our medical industry to mediocrity.

We were pretty far down the list of countries in health care for a long time before Obama became President. We have also been the most expensive health care in the world, no matter how poorly we perform.

Infant mortality? Try 22nd. Tied with Cuba. Yep, Bloody Cuba.

We are at the top of the list with breast cancer outcomes, but are in the 20s in most areas.

All Obama did was to bring more Americans into a higher level of care. Like basic preventive care. AND he started getting rid of pre-existing conditions, with kids getting the first break.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 46):
Would that be the same house Republicans that over the last two years have sent multiple pieces of good economic legistation to the Senate only to have Harry Reid's cabal quash it before it can even be heard.

If you are talking about Tea Party Legislation then the Democrats in the Senate have saved the Country IMO.

Those yo-yos wrapped up in the Flags will be happy to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Inexperienced dorks who think they are on a roll with their simplistic approach to complex problems

And very soon there will be major reductions in government spending, providing a real picture of just how stupid these economic holy rollers really are. Let's wait for their excuses on the dramatic cuts in Defense spending, border patrol, etc.

Want a hint on how bad they are? Watch the states that refuse additional Medicaid funding because it means they have to care for the poor at a more intelligent level.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Couldn't you say that Tea Party members say "socialists" or "dims" because they're being called "Tea Baggers?"

But you can get in trouble for using the T** B****** term, where socialist and dims are perfectly fine on this board. It seems the TPers are very sensitive people (which is probably why they like to wrap themselves up in the flag) and they file complaints if you use the T** B****** term. :—I

Well be the bigger man and don't name call, even if they do... that's a 1st grader concept. I'm guessing part of the reason T** B****** gets deleted and socialist doesn't is because socialist means someone who subscribes in socialist ideas and TBers... well... I'm not gonna go there. If you don't like being called a "dim" (whatever that means) or socialist, don't subscribe to name calling yourself. They may stop, they may not, but at least you're not adding to the ignorance.


Back on topic, although Romney really hasn't been clear or consistent on healthcare, I think he's really choking on the states' right issue: with the ACA, the federal government is forcing states to do things. With Romney care, it was a state issue. Not saying I agree, but I never saw that aspect of Romney care hypocritical. It's the other stances I have issues with



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 38):
I don't know, I was thinking about some kind of catastrophic cap. It wouldn't be just the people who end up getting sick that would pay in, it would be everyone. I'm just saying for people that have a common cold or something, the realistic choice is to suck it up or get insurance to cover that. By no means do I want people dying on the street or going bankrupt over ankylosing spondylitis

Then you are talking about a high-deductible plan. Those already exist. But once that ER visit winds up being a chronic condition, then you are going to want something that covers your chronic care. So now you have to change plans and that will drive up the cost by concentrating the costs on those who are unfortunate.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2678 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 46):
Would that be the same house Republicans that over the last two years have sent multiple pieces of good economic legistation to the Senate only to have Harry Reid's cabal quash it before it can even be heard.

You are forgetting one single piece in the puzzle: all the bills (if any are worth mentioning) that pass the House always have a controversial issue which can be settled apart in a separate bill, hence the constant rejection by the Senate. Tell me why would you attach (for instance) an anti-abortion bill with funding for a special program/area that has nothing to do with it?

The GOP is thinking it might be playing it smart to pass bills in the House and have the Senate reject it because the media will only focus on the important part; they'll always leave out part of it, that part that made the bill controversial in the first place.

And yes, the same Republicans that have thus far failed to act on the Jobs bill that Obama proposed, that have passed dozens of commemorations and bills related to their ideals but not one that can boost jobs, and the same Republicans who after agreeing with Democrats to automatic cuts as a consequence should the Super Committee tasked with finding areas to cut money from fail (which it did) are now trying to slip away from the deal.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11128 posts, RR: 15
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

If the right wing hates government run health care, why not cancel VA and stop telling women they can not have abortions?

Better yet: Why not have every single American over the age of 18 pay $20 a month for health care? They choose the doctor and so forth. Zero denials. Ever. For cancer or the cold.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8875 posts, RR: 40
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2494 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 42):
And the Supreme Court said that it IS constitutional and can be applied throughout the US as well. So its not no longer a question of it being a right that ONLY a state. The USCC has given that right to the Federal Government.

Who here really believes in this USSC decision? To me, this decision was based on some strategizing judge rather than on the actual law.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 43):
First off, State's Rights, especially the way conservatives want to define it, died on April 9th, 1865, when Lee surrendered to Grant. The idea that the states are sovereign, and that the national government is irrelevant, died when the Confederacy died. At that point, we became a nation, not a collection of individual fiefdoms, so to say. States' Rights hasn't existed for almost 150 years.

Well that's flat out wrong. It's still in the constitution and is still a very relevant concept, for one.

Btw, on April 9th, you became a nation of slave states, rather than free states. And the irony is that instead of having a nation composed of numerous very powerful states, people such as yourself think it's better to have one centralized power that is just as powerful. How is having one massively powerful overlord better? Completely senseless.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 43):
Secondly, it doesn't matter how Romney defended it. It's still been upheld as Constitutional, so that's simply splitting hairs to score some cheap political points.

Except it does matter, because it answers one of the question you posted when you opened this thread. . .


"And further, how can Romney be taken seriously on this issue when he's arguing against the very plan he enacted in his home state?"

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 43):
And how is it "hypothetical" to Republicans, when they're the ones who came up with the idea in the first place?

Because it goes against their supposed principles? Not that they truly have any. . .



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineATTart From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2473 times:




Remember: When someone talks behind your back, it only means you're two steps ahead of them!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8875 posts, RR: 40
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2457 times:

Quoting ATTart (Reply 53):

Republicans are against charity? News to me. . .



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11128 posts, RR: 15
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 54):
Quoting ATTart (Reply 53):
Republicans are against charity? News to me. . .

Where in the post was it said the right-wingers are against charity? May I also remind everyone that Jesus was a dark-skinned man who never married or had children, hung out mainly with 12 men, his one best lady friend was a prostitute, gave all he had to charity and the poor, preached against the rich, and never spoke a word of English.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 46):

Would those be the same conservaties that didn't have control of the congress the last two years of bushes term and the first two years of Obama?

We aren't talking about Bush's term, are we? The Dems have had a razor-thin control of the Senate, but not enough to kill most fillabusters in that Chamber. You know that. And the GOP has controlled the House.

The Republicans are complaining about the job numbers, but why hasn't there been movement in either chamber on jobs creation? The president can propose, but it takes the Congress to legislate. The GOP in Congress is acting as if there's no problem with jobs. They aren't moving anything. Why? Easy. They don't WANT any jobs creation while Obama is in office. They just want to bitch about the numbers, and hope it takes the President down.

I think they'll be mistaken.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8875 posts, RR: 40
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
Where in the post was it said the right-wingers are against charity?

That was the whole point of the post. . .

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
May I also remind everyone that Jesus was a dark-skinned man who never married or had children, hung out mainly with 12 men, his one best lady friend was a prostitute, gave all he had to charity and the poor, preached against the rich, and never spoke a word of English.

I guess they aren't that racist, after all! I mean they love the man. (ps: Jesus was also a peacenik - preached against the rich, but never threatened them with violence for it)

Republicans also love stuffing their faces in Mexican restaurants, which most of them time are run by Mexicans. They sure love taking vacations over in Mexico too.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Thread starter):
In it, the Heritage Foundation proposal states, and I quote "The plan would treat all health care benefits provided by the employer as taxable income to the employee." (My italics added).

Now, to me, that sounds like the Individual Mandate that is in the President's program, and the Supreme Court said it was a tax in it's ruling.

How is taxing employer provided health care like the individual mandate? They are not even close in comparison.

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Thread starter):
Couple that with the fact that Romney authored a similar health care initiative in Massachusetts.

Romney is not my candidate. But with a choice between him the Teleprompter in Chief I will stick with the guy who actually ran something in his real life. Like with McCain we are stuck with two bad choices.

Quoting ATTart (Reply 53):
Quoting ATTart (Reply 53):Republicans are against charity? News to me. . .

I do not remember the part where Jesus asked the Romans to tax people to pay for someone else's health care. What he did was called charity not socialism.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 55):
gave all he had to charity and the poor

And preached about accountability for yourself. Not asking the taxpayer to do it for you.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineTecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2383 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 58):
Teleprompter in Chief

That's so lame. The so-called "Great Communicator", the man who would be called a RINO today by you and other conservatives, Ronald Reagan, used a teleprompter all the time. So why use it now? Cheap, meaningless points? What, you can't beat him on the issues?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 58):
What he did was called charity not socialism.

Jesus said take care of those less fortunate. He didn't say that only implies for individuals, did he? Whether you like it or not, when you read the Bible, Jesus comes out sounding pretty Socialist.


User currently offlineATTart From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

Let us not forget the labels that the far right call the moderate Reps RINOS..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523454/posts

I am an Independent, who is sick and tired of both sides throwing out labels or the name calling. Just because one does not fall in line or believe 100% with their platform.

My partner is a Log Cabin Republican and we have had some heated discussions. But we do not resort to name calling or labeling to make our point.

[Edited 2012-07-08 13:36:48]


Remember: When someone talks behind your back, it only means you're two steps ahead of them!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11128 posts, RR: 15
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2332 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 56):
The GOP in Congress is acting as if there's no problem with jobs.

These are the same people who blame Obama for high gas prices, but, under W said prices were fine because it was private corporations just trying to turn a profit. Under W, they said the jobs numbers were find because they were reflecting private industry. Now, jobs numbers are reflecting (still) private industry, but it is Obama's fault. How?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 58):
And preached about accountability for yourself. Not asking the taxpayer to do it for you.

And paying taxes so the government could build roads and aquaducts.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2299 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
So now you have to change plans and that will drive up the cost by concentrating the costs on those who are unfortunate.

Any program that does not provide a public option for competitive purposes will simply drive up costs.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 51):

If the right wing hates government run health care, why not cancel VA

Don't say that too loud - the hard right is looking for ways to lower the top tax rate and I doubt if they have any hesitation throwing veterans under the bus to get that extra, unaffordable deduction.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 51):
Why not have every single American over the age of 18 pay $20

It's going to cost more than that. $20 health care is a retired nurse and aspirins.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 52):
Who here really believes in this USSC decision?

A lot of people fully believes it.

And, for those who don't, too bad. The decision has been delivered.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 54):
Republicans are against charity?

Nope. It's a tax deduction.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 58):
How is taxing employer provided health care like the individual mandate?

We need to give up that tax free ride simply because we can no longer afford it.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 58):
Teleprompter in Chief

Don't kid yourself, if Romney wins he will also be using the Teleprompter. There is too much focus on what a President says, especially during important speeches, to have someone casually tossing off comments. Presidential Speeches are crafted with a lot of thought and reviews. No way would Romney not use caution and care on his speeches.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 58):
I do not remember the part where Jesus asked the Romans to tax people to pay for someone else's health care.

What was health care 2000 years ago?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2244 times:

The court ruled that the ACA is Constitutional... not that the ACA must exist... if the GOP is all high strung about it they should stop fighting the USSC (even a right-leaning judge ruled in it's favor) and take it to the legislature. I'm glad the court was able to be independent from politics... they don't rule the way I like it 100% of the time but that's the way it should be, objective. I'd find it hard to take the word of a random lawyer or scholar over the USSC, so it's hard to see random citizens and posters claiming the USSC is wrong.

If the Republican party leaders focused on finding a better alternative to the ACA instead of complaining about the ruling maybe they'd actually come up with a plan Americans like and will have a shot of implementing it (versus fighting the USSC and losing guaranteed)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 61):
He didn't say that only implies for individuals, did he? Whether you like it or not, when you read the Bible, Jesus comes out sounding pretty Socialist.

Please show me where Jesus ask's for a third party to collect from other citizens a tax at the tip of a spear to provide for the needy or to redistribute to others in the name of social justice.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

What I find kind of funny is many of the people that are yelling at conservatives to just accept the ruling are the ones that thought it was a great injustice when the Citizens United case came out... just an observation


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2678 posts, RR: 8
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 82):
What I find kind of funny is many of the people that are yelling at conservatives to just accept the ruling are the ones that thought it was a great injustice when the Citizens United case came out... just an observation

And viceversa. When Citizens United came out, we were told to suck it up, but now that Obamacare was upheld, those same ones that said to suck it up cannot do so.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2058 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 86):
And viceversa. When Citizens United came out, we were told to suck it up, but now that Obamacare was upheld, those same ones that said to suck it up cannot do so.

Yeah, I agree. Just trying to put some people in the others' shoes, and also to remind the other side that the court isn't always made up of "liberal activists"

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 84):
I didn't like Citizens United. But it's right by definition. If you don't like it then your options are 1) Lobby your elected leaders to pass a constitutional amendment or 2) leave the country.

I see great problems with Citizens United, but I think a temporary fix or compromise could be to pass a law providing more transparency. As of now it is considered protected free speech, but is there a problem with passing a law creating more transparency?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 85):
Or, like any SC decision, you can wait until a President can nominate some new judges that are more in tune with your position. That's a real gamble these days.

Doesn't that seem a bit shady though? Shouldn't you try and pick a unbiased judge? (I know that never happens but still, the seems very shady to just overturn a previous SC case by just getting a new judge in there...)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2056 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 87):
Doesn't that seem a bit shady though?

Not really. It's how most Justices get to the Court.

The issue is who will be the President making the nominations. Some nominations have been pretty good over a period of years, with a Justice breaking out of their perceived positions. That leads to a period of time where the Court can really serve the entire country. Maybe the tis what happened with the Health Reform decision.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2056 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 88):
Some nominations have been pretty good over a period of years, with a Justice breaking out of their perceived positions. That leads to a period of time where the Court can really serve the entire country. Maybe the tis what happened with the Health Reform decision.

Yes, hopefully both sides can see it this way, instead of one side always complaining. Just imagine if Newt Gingrich was still in the race... remember his whole rant on arresting "liberal activist judges?"  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8875 posts, RR: 40
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 62):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 54):
Republicans are against charity?

Nope. It's a tax deduction.

Sounds like a good argument. . . unless you actually know tax law.

Reality is, those credits are almost completely meaningless.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1905 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 66):
And viceversa. When Citizens United came out, we were told to suck it up, but now that Obamacare was upheld, those same ones that said to suck it up cannot do so.

For me I do not believe that any of these decisions that are being made for 300+ million people should come down to the vote of 1 justice who is not held accountable to anyone. The system needs to be changed. It stopped being about protecting the Constitution many years ago and has been political. A large majority of these issues have been decided on political ideologies and not on actual precedents or original intent.



OMG-Obama Must Go
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Gay Marriage, The GOP And Dircksen's Speech On CR. posted Wed Jul 19 2006 08:20:13 by SFOMEX
Romney To GOP Governors: Shut Up! posted Thu Jun 21 2012 05:03:11 by einsteinboricua
Question For The Athiests And Agnostics? posted Thu Jul 15 2010 02:29:42 by Mudboy
Why Is Steele Still The Chairman Of The GOP? posted Fri Jul 2 2010 11:41:09 by casinterest
Bart Stupak Pulls The Ripcord And Bails posted Fri Apr 9 2010 06:58:34 by DXing
Bring Out The Vodka And Tang: Losers Of The Week posted Thu Feb 4 2010 20:07:43 by FLY2HMO
Why Dont The US And Canada Drive On The Left? posted Sun Nov 8 2009 19:34:23 by Aeroflot001
The Spider And The Pope posted Sun Sep 27 2009 12:14:58 by MadameConcorde
2010 Nominees For The Rock And Roll HOF Announced posted Wed Sep 23 2009 13:29:32 by Srbmod
Is The GOP Interested In Fixing Healthcare Part 3 posted Sun Sep 6 2009 13:58:21 by Toulouse