U never seen anythin like death panels in 2008? Give me a break with your fake outrage. If anything Obama is running plays from the Carl Rove playbook and you mugs can't stand your own medicine.
Please stop embarrassing yourself. Hypocrisy is really not a good look especially from one who is arrogantly so....
@still pompous
You really gonna sit there with a straight face and say mitt Romney NO skeletons in his closet??? His taxes which he refuses to realease, ROMNEY CARE, BAIN, hell his governorship where Massachusetts went from 50 to 47 in unemployment, how HE RAN TO THE LEFT OF TED KENNEDY IN the MASS. SENATE RACE OF 92(94?), was for womens choice now against, believed in climate change now against, REAPEALING OBAMACARE WHICH IS! ROMNEY CARE,( ppl in mass. Enjoy romneycare! Its popular! Thats why ann coulter went bat sh!t crazy yesterday)***, so on and so on. SO WHEN YOU GET ON HERE AND ACT LIKE ROMNEy is ALL HOLYIER THAN THOU I GOTTA CALL U OUT ON IT.
WE CAN HAVE DIFGERENT OPINIONS, BUT WE CANT HAVE DIFFERENT FACTS.
One more thing regarding the new Obama.add in which the man talks about his wife dying of cancer....
you know ima Obama supporter, but sometimes the DEMOCRATS *** ME THE FCUK OFF!!
As many Lies the repubs tell on a daily basis INCLUDING mity Romney LITERALLY editing obamas words to look like hes saying sumn else
They gonna get they b!tch *** on TV complaining about this add wtf you agreeing with the repubs for they just gonna use it against you!! Wtf?
One THIng I ADMIRE ABOUT REPUBS: WHEN THEY LIE THEY STICK TOGETHER!! (death panels anyone??) Dems needa grow sum *** and stop acting like g0tdamn punks
Be glad when this sh!t over......
@freduhate
Agreed. The republicans are definitely more disciplined when it comes to staying on message. I remember when Obama spoke about his grandmother's issues with race and the next day they were all repeating the same thing with the same exact phrase. It was a buncha b%ll but you gotta admire that teamwork.
How anyone can defend Romney or Obama is beyond me. Here we are, quibbling about some television ad, when the real problems don't come to light.
I mean, what's the difference between them on foreign policy? They both support sanctions on Iran, billions of dollars in foreign aid (including big donations to Israel and Pakistan) to countries all over which have shown time and time again to be detrimental to both us and other countries.
Both think government run healthcare is just fine. Romney says he will repeal Obamacare and replace it. Replace it? What kind of conservative are you? Just another RINO.
War on drugs? Nothing different there. Obama freely admits and even jokes about smoking pot when he was younger, but fails to do anything to stop the billions of dollars and man hours and lives ruined in the War on Drugs. If he was caught in his younger days, his political career would be dead before it started; yet he and his followers fail to see the hypocrisy.
Monetary policy? Hey, both think the bailouts were fine and Bernake is doing fine and do nothing about the Fed. People blame the rich and lack of regulation for this wealth disparity in America. Yet the Fed is nary mentioned. Hey our government is trillions in debt, lets print more money! And let's ignore the coincidence in the rising student debt, health care costs, housing bubbles, and everything else. As long as the government will bail us out and stick it to the American people, we have no reason to be wary your funny money.
Sigh, Obama and Romney are both bankrolled by the same companies. The Dems will tolerate the Repubs cause they'll continue to bankroll the military industrial complex. And the Repubs will tolerate the Dems because they'll expand the welfare programs. And all the while they waste months out of the year arguing over whether to spend $1 trillion now or $1.1 trillion later.
Please Romney and Obama fans, dispute what I've written.
Great1, I do believe government run healthcare is not up to par. Up until fairly recently, most VA hospitals had atrocious quality of care; many still do. But inevitably when the government gets involved, prices go up. Student loans. Tuition goes up. Housing. We all saw what happened with the real estate bubble. Healthcare? Everyone's coverage has been going up for decades.
Can you tell me where in the Constitution that the Federal government is authorized to offer universal healthcare? Or that the Federal government is responsible for education? It's an honest question.
It's fine if you think the government can provide high quality service with respect to healthcare. I just don't think they have a good track record with anything. Post office? Amtrak? FEMA (see: Hurricane Katrina). TSA? The list goes on and on. This is a big jump for liberals and conservatives to take. Both thinking we need more government and it's always the "other" party causing problems. Why not remove that power from the Federal and corruption from the government in the first place? What happens is both parties continue the same old bad policies (warfare, welfare, etc) and they blame the other party for their problems.
You can reject the free market and Austrian economics all you want and embrace the Keynesian economics of free lines of credit to expand our government in ways our Founders didn't dream of. The country was founded on principles of minimal government interference and the freedom of choice, whether in social, economic, or other choices.
I suppose you believe utilities would be better run by the Federal government? How do you mean privatizing reproduction? The whole point of the free market is to allow for competition. The government (that includes ALL participants of the government) has a long and sordid history of showing tremendous favoritism to corporations and snuffing out competition. You can go all the way back to the railroad and steel monopolies and even further to found evidence the government interfering in the economy.
Hater, I'm unsure what the hell your talking about.Unless I'm missing some sarcasm in your post, Ron Paul has been the only candidate in the past two elections to promise to bring all the troops home today. Not X amount of brigades every Y months. As commander-in-chief, the President has the power to do that. I have never heard Ron Paul endorse a draft. He is ever critical of our awful foreign policy. He received more donations this election and last election from the armed services than the rest of the Republican candidates combined (and more than Obama). He has hundreds of veterans much for him in DC a few months ago. Not to mention Ron Paul is an Air Force veteran, whereas Obama and Romney (and most of the other Republicans) are not. Rereading your post, I really don't understand what you're trying to say.
I see no one has commented on my points about Obama and Romney having the same foreign policy, same stance on healthcare, same stance on the War on Drugs, and the same stance on economic and monetary policy.
"thats a bogus argument....when you put a human element in anything...its gonna be riddled with human error.....that doesnt mean you *** do it.."
Exactly my point. Why should bureaucrats be the be-all and end-all when they're just prone to mistakes? Except laws and regulations they enact affect over 330 million Americans. Free market allows for competition where businesses that are prone to mistakes do not last very long. If the government makes a mistake, they're still around. And in our crony-capitalistic society, business are (and have been) propped up, bailed out, and showed special favors. The unholy marriage of big-business and big-government. Our government employees receives private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. I think we're making a similar point, I do want the government to stop giving privileges to these monstrous multi-national corporations (but what is the likelihood of that? Members of Congress receive great health benefits and pay (coincidence that they can vote to for this type of stuff?) whereas veterans at government VA hospitals get crappy care. Do you believe the government can all of a sudden start offering cheap, quality healthcare at competitive prices? Why haven't they done that before? Is any government program prone (and inevitable) to degenerate to an unsustainable and low quality service?
You are certainly stretching the meaning of "Life, Liberty, and Happiness". What if I, as a member of Congress, think a PC, cell phone, and car are part of happiness? And I believe everyone should get those, so I pass the legislation that everyone should get these things. What if I argue that everyone needs 5 meals a day to have a good life and that alcohol is too bad for you, so I pass laws that everyone needs to eat 5 times a day and that we need to ban alcohol. And what if I think liberty means not being forced to buy something I do not want to buy and have the ability to enter contracts that trade in commodity based money and not paper Fed notes?
As far as the Commerce (and General Welfare) clause, you know as much as anyone that there has been a long history of what was specifically meant by the people who wrote it, with Madison and Hamilton taking very different views on how broad or how narrow that it. We can argue ad nauseum about this, but I believe this is something we'll have to agree to disagree to.
I will agree that education is important, but not everyone does/want to go to school. And government involvement in school has resulted in obscene tuition and plummeting rankings on the global scale in education. I will say this though, you are a fan of big government. And if you want big government, you need to be willingly to accept big government programs from both the left and the right, because that's the only way big government will work. I'm advocating small government and let the states and people decide what's best for their states.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the US Constitution. If the power is specifically granted to the Federal government, then the power is reserved to the states. Article 1, section 8 is as clear as day on this issue (and lsits the powers they do have). If there is nothing about Federal healthcare or Federal education or Federal banks, than there should not be any of these (yet we have them
And I'm afraid a treaty with Afghanistan does not supersede our own national sovereignty and Constitution and violates the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, clause 2). If you think international treaties do trump our sovereignty, you are no different than the other neo-Cons and warmongers out there. We just marched, and we can just march out. Nothing prevents us from this. And *** of a President not having the backbone to save American soldiers' lives by withdrawing them and saving hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, Congress and simply choose not to fund these wars; but they don't. Obama asks and Congress provides.
Oh, and I saw this yesterday (although I can't link it on the board). Obama's administration is having their lawyers fight a judge's ruling overturning the indefinite detention of American citizens in a bill he signed into law. Why would he do that?
Again, how do Obama and Romney differ on healthcare, foreign policy, and monetary policy?
@superflygt
You cannot lay the blame for the failing experiment (the way we practice capitalism) primarily in the lap of "big government." No matter what method or strategy you use whether its the free market or government controlled there will always be human error and more importantly incentive for people to cheat the system. Ideally you are right that free market is the best way imho with one exception. I will get to why healthcare is that exception.
The reason why the free market will not work in our current economic culture is because we do not do enough to remove the incentives for people to cheat. When we allow corparations to contribute to political campaigns for example we are basically asking for favoritism in exchange for campaign money. As far as blaiming the government for the bailout that's like worrying about the branches of your neighboor's tree touching your house every time it thunderstorms but ignoring the whole tree could fall and destroy your house. The "tree trunk" here is allowing 1) companies to get too big to fail 2) companies to engage in business practices that contributed to the economic crisis. But in any case we still need government involvent for regulation purposes cause asking the free market to regulate itself is like asking students to self supervise during finals and expect no one to cheat.
On healthcare, profit in a competition with providing people with healthcare is a dangerous situation.
Ok, you mean everything and not just the private sector. Actually my understanding of the free market was slightly off. I was thinking of it in terms of very little government intervention not realising that true free market means absolutely no government involvement or regulation, not even to prevent monopolies. This can't be what people are actually wanting to implement in this country...
That would be insane.
Great1: "cause we cant do it effectively means we *** do it..... fictitious argument....you cant come in and talk about big bisiness merged with Govt and then agree that HC should be provided by the free market an sky high rates lackluster coverage where profits trump care of the citizenry...Big Phrma and HC..has been writing HC legislation since Nixon sank us into the HMO system in the 70's" I do feel we are making very similar points but have drawn different conclusions. You yourself mention several key points here: ever-increasing rates, poorer coverage, profit-driven motives, Big Pharma writing their own legislation, and the HMO Act of 1973. Need I remind you that insurance companies are profit-driven already? But here I argue that itâs precisely because of government involvement and allowing the industry to write its own rules that allow for increasing rates and poor coverage. Legislation is crafted to allow for the greatest profit and to snuff out competition (it is very hard for generic drug companies and alternative medicine to pass FDA regulations. Heck, being able to drink raw milk has become a huge controversy). Healthcare was very affordable before the HMO Act of 1973 and we are to assume that the governmentâs involvement with this (and other) legislation is just coincidental with the rise in costs? Couple that with the large amount of inflation by the Fed, and we have recipe for disaster. If we allow for more competition (and remove government preference), companies would be competing for your money and would drive the cost down (just like the way clothes, computers, cell phones, etc. are affordable). So I argue to remove special favors and allow for competition again. âthis explicitly gives the power of international treatise powers superceeding the Constitution...ARGUMENT FAIL!!!â First, with respect to the Treaty Clause of Article 2 Section 2, you are correct. The clause states that the President is Commander in Chief and the President make treaties. However, this doesnât give the President carte blanche to do anything he wants. By your argument, the President can make a treaty with Israel or the UN or some other country that allows US troops to be commanded by foreign commanders and start wars without declaration from Congress. Or a President can enter in a treaty that violates are civil rights of the Constitution and it would be okay. This cannot be done and it is because of Article 6, Clause 2, the Supremacy clause, restated here: âThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.â The key points you are missing is the phrase âin pursuance thereof â and the last sentence, â⦠anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.â This clause states that Federal law trumps State laws, but Federal laws and treaties must be made in accordance (pursuance) with the Constitution, and any laws and treaties that violate the Constitution are void. This is why we cannot enter a treaty with the UN to follow a UN regulation to ban guns in America for example.
And the whole reason for bringing this up is because you argue that the President cannot withdraw our troops from the Middle and Far East. Here is what I argue (and being a veteran, Iâm sure you can agree with some of these points). 1.) We are at war. 2.) We have US troops actively engaging in armed combat in foreign lands. 3.) There has been no declaration of war (although legislation has been introduced to declare war and was subsequently voted down). 4.) Only Congress can declare War. 5.) Since we are formally not at war, the President cannot pass treaties that allow him to engage in War, because this violates the Congressâ authority of being the only body to declare war. 6.) Ergo, treaties with Iraq and Afghanistan made with regards to War is null and void. If you disagree with this reasoning, why do we even need a Congress to declare war? âagain..as my friend....Hater would say.....Apples VS Pears.....CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT!!!!......â This is quite a hand-waving argument if I ever saw one. You cannot simply dismiss seemingly inane things like regulating the amount or contents of meals we eat (re: Bloomberg bans large sodas in New York) as something that couldnât happen. Once a piece of vague legislation is introduced, nothing would stop a right-wing religious politician from abusing this power in the future. After all, politicians thought banning alcohol was a good idea and we saw how well that worked out. And, as I said before, both Romney and Obama want to continue a similar war, the War on Drugs. At least then they needed an Amendment to ban alcohol. Once we start writing and passing vague laws, we give the government broad authority to do what it wants and deem what is and isnât good for us. âCommons such as HC and Education........are totally different from amenities...like Cell Phone and PC.....those itens are not needed to survive and enjoy life......Education and good Health ARE needed to enjoy a fruitful life..so they do fall into the realm of the General Clause....also lest you forget...the Constitution is a evolving ***....thats why it has amendments..cause like the Bible...it has the general guidleines..but they are open to intepetation and the views change with the times......thats why they had to add amendments to it for women rights for voting slavery...blacks voting rights....etc.....â Yet our government passes legislation to allow for free cell phones. Education and quality health are important, this I do agree with. But I do not agree that itâs the Federal governmentâs duty to do this. National education and an Amendment was seriously considered by Jefferson, but ultimately decided against it. After all, we didnât have any sort of national education pre-1970s, yet we led the world in science and industry. We revolutionized nuclear technology, landed on the moon, discovered the transistor, etc. Yet, since government involvement (re: No Child Left Behind, Board of Education, etc.), our national rankings have dropped quite remarkably. And we need more government involvement? And yes, we do Amend our Constitution, but the Constitution is not a living ***. The Bible and the Constitution are two very, very different *** and the ambiguity that exists in the Bible is suppose to be little to non-existent in the Constitution. The Constitution isnât meant for everyone to have a myriad of different opinions of what this or that says. And one can argue that laws that restrict voting rights and Jim Crowe laws fall under the violation of Liberty.
âthats also why before he died suddenly..FDR...was crafting a workers bill of rights in this country...that wouldve been an amendment to the Constitution......it created specific needs not listed in the original Constition Only a true idealogue....looks at it like and unflinching ***...thats why Ron Paul is an abolsute FAIL..so are his followers....â FDR? The same FDR that was elected to four terms and would stayed longer had he not died? The same FDR that prolonged the Great Depression and gave us so many insolvent social programs that cannot be sustained? The same FDR that was trying to pass legislation to expand the Supreme Court and add judges of his choosing to get more of his legislation passed? Again, if you think the Constitution is magically open to interpretation on every issue, you are a big government fan and a statist and believe that the government needs to take care of everyone cradle-to-grave. The Constitution is meant to restrict, delineate, and separate powers, not to expand government. If you want a big government program from the Left, you will also need to support more wars from the Right, because thatâs the only way your views work.
Budda: What America practices is certainly stretching the definition of capitalism. What we do is allow big businesses to influence legislation and when they fail, we have politicians that bail out their buddies and sticks the bill with the taxpayer. Of course, this is intrinsically tied to the Federal Reserve. And I agree, there is human error in any endeavor. And this error is the prime correcting factor for goods and services in a capitalistic society. However, when the government removes these protections we create a moral hazard and allows for bad business practices to continue. Once itâs law, it is very difficult to repeal. And I agree about corporations having a huge influence on our politics. But I argue that we donât need to regulate corporations more, but limit government instead. Because if we remove these expansive powers from the government, there would be nothing to lobby for. The free market would do a much more effective job of regulating business than the government could ever do. The reason that business become âtoo big to failâ is because they have no incentive to take due diligence with your money because theyâll get bailed out (with funny money printed at the Fed), they donât go to jail, they stick the bill to us, and they go on like nothing happened. If there had to be a bailout, why not bailout the home owners and not the corporations? As far as monopolies, the government has a long history of enabling monopolies, going back to the railroad and steel monopolies of the 1800s. These big corporations lobby to get strict regulations passed that small business cannot possibly hope to meet, preventing any sort of competition. Only when it becomes unbearable does the government even consider to break up monopolies. Also, a free market of sorts does exist in the form of the internet, where free exchanges of ideas and easy shopping is available. Heaven help us if this last free beacon gets regulated in any way by the government (something President Obama has attempted to do as well as members of Congress). And if you do not believe in the free market, I cannot think of another better reason against government health care than the simple fact that our government simply canât get anything right (how many millions in the hole is the Postal Service? Any they just deliver mail.). If you think after all the rabble-rousing and transformation this legislation will undergo will benefit the people and not the insurance companies, you have more faith in the government than I do. Weâll be worse off than ever before. And with your analogy of the student, this is somewhat we have now. A student (the government) with an open line of credit (the Fed) expanding warfare and welfare with nothing to constrain them.