Front Office Football Central
Page 101 of 264 « First < 51919293949596979899100 101 102103104105106107108109110111151201 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

RainMaker 06-29-2010 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2311201)
When does California become one? We know the federal bailout is coming soon, right? They are broke.
When they start getting back what they paid in as a state. How do you bailout a state with their own money?

molson 06-29-2010 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2311203)
When they start getting back what they paid in as a state. How do you bailout a state with their own money?

What is the practical application of your obsession with "welfare states", and states getting "screwed"?

Would you favor a constitutional amendment that required 1:1 fed taxing/spending fairness across the states?

And why just limit this unjust differential to states? Let's do it with races. I bet whites are being "screwed" compared to minorities, in terms of taxes v. support. Is that a travesty? I bet married suburban couples are getting "screwed" compared to single urban mothers. Isn't that what government is supposed to do?

molson 06-29-2010 06:16 PM
Anyway, if the deal is that tomorrow, federal support to Idaho is cut by some amount, AND Idahoan's federal income taxes are cut by the same ratio, I'm sure many (middle class people and up at least), would sign onto that in a second.

Only the poor would be screwed in that scenario.

panerd 06-29-2010 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2311203)
When they start getting back what they paid in as a state. How do you bailout a state with their own money?

EDIT: I could care less about this as I don't support most of the federal programs. So don't get mad if I leave this debate to you and Molson as I feel like I am starting to defend Republicans who I care about even less than Democrats.

RainMaker 06-29-2010 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2311206)
What is the practical application of your obsession with "welfare states", and states getting "screwed"?

Would you favor a constitutional amendment that required 1:1 fed taxing/spending fairness across the states?

And why just limit this unjust differential to states? Let's do it with races. I bet whites are being "screwed" compared to minorities, in terms of taxes v. support. Is that a travesty? I bet married suburban couples are getting "screwed" compared to single urban mothers. Isn't that what government is supposed to do?
No I don't support that at all. I just like pointing out hypocrisy. It's hypocritical to whine about the federal government if you are living off them. And it's wrong to call it a bailout when a state is being paid back with the money they put in but never received back.

I would say the same thing about individuals. If a guy is collecting a welfare check to survive and then goes on and on bitching about the government, I'd call him a hypocrite. Just as I wouldn't call a rich guy a failure who went bankrupt having to support deadbeat family members.

JPhillips 06-29-2010 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2311158)
Count me as one who seems to have been swayed too much by his father and by interviews Rand did before winning the Republican primary. (He was very much anti government spending and also seemed to be anti-war and anti drug war in interviews back in the spring) There are two things that help me keep hope alive...

1) A lot of people think he is playing the game and will ultimately lean way more libertarian if he wins the senate seat. I have to say I am not a fan of this. His father seems to have no problems winning his seat in the House based solely on principles. Of course Ron Paul has had trouble in the past running for Senate/President so maybe this is a strategy you have to use for a bigger office like this.

2) He is probably still a better candidate than 99% of the members of both parties of Congress right now. I am an even smaller fan of this. Yet another "bitch about health care and compromise on endless war and continuing the drug war and turn your back on bashing gays" candidate.

I will eat crow on my Rand "rants" but one has to wonder why all of the mainstream media all over the country was all over his jock (he was big news here in St. Louis for a while) In the age of the internet you have to admit when a national party tries to smears their own candidate it isn't quite as easy to hide as it used to be in the days of three news stations and about a dozen major newspapers.

I will continue to support Ron Paul though.

JPhillips: The principle of the gold standard is quite simple and not really that radical. Your central bank must back their currency with some sort of tangible commodity. As it is the Federal Reserve can just print $4 billion and send it to GM or $10 billion to Greece or God who knows how much to Goldman Sachs. With a better system they would have to justify where the hell they are getting this money from and couldn't just roll out the printing press. Of course Ron Paul wants the Congress to have that power which I can't say is any different than the Fed having it and could possibly be worse. But I do have a problem with bailouts and the welfare state (both for individuals and corporations) and I don't think proposing that they account for tax money is all that radical or crazy an idea.

EDIT: I guess somebody could say they sell bonds to the Chinese to justify the continual printing press. If that is a defense of the Federal Reserve then God help us all.

There's a whole lot of difference between auditing the Fed, which I would like to see, and returning our economy to the gold standard. Tying our economy and to a large extent the global economy to the price of a single commodity just isn't smart. Look at the price of gold over the last ten years. Do you really think it would have been a good idea to have that price fluctuation as the foundation of our currency?

DaddyTorgo 06-29-2010 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2311178)
"End the Fed" is a chant by the Tea Party where 99.9% of the people don't understand the ramifications. (That includes me, though I would like to think I have a little better background in economics than the Sarah Palin supporters) However this arguement doesn't have to be framed as either we have the free-spending Fed or the free-spending Congress. There are some bills out there that want a full audit of the Federal Reserve (not a takeover) that don't seem that crazy. And when Berneke says it might damage the economy if we knew what was going on count me as one who doesn't say "Well fuck it then"

Can you imagine?

Me: "Where did all of our money go?"
Wife: "Spent most of it, loaned some to friends"
Me: "Where?"
Wife: "You are better off not knowing"

I'm in favor of a full audit of the Fed FWIW.

DaddyTorgo 06-29-2010 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediKooter (Post 2311190)
What the hell does that have to do with being a christian? Oh, wait, it's because she thinks her religion is superior to any other religion or way of thinking and that as an elected official, she will try and impose her religion on others by legislating it.

She's a fuckin whack-a-doo.

JediKooter 06-29-2010 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2311247)
She's a fuckin whack-a-doo.

I would not be surprised if she was their Queen whack-a-doo.

molson 06-29-2010 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2311226)
No I don't support that at all. I just like pointing out hypocrisy. It's hypocritical to whine about the federal government if you are living off them. And it's wrong to call it a bailout when a state is being paid back with the money they put in but never received back.

I would say the same thing about individuals. If a guy is collecting a welfare check to survive and then goes on and on bitching about the government, I'd call him a hypocrite. Just as I wouldn't call a rich guy a failure who went bankrupt having to support deadbeat family members.

The richest, whitest, most Republican people in Idaho would completely agree with you.

JPhillips 06-30-2010 01:42 PM
Want to stabilize the debt? Do nothing!



From Matt Yglesias' blog:

Quote:
See that line where the debt:GDP ratio is stable? That’s what happens under current law. If congress changes nothing, or the president vetoes everything, then this is what happens. No apocalypse. But nobody believes that’s going to happen. Nobody believes the Bush tax cuts will fully expire. Nobody expects the AMT phase-in to happen. Nobody expects physicians’ Medicare reimbursement rates to be held in check. And though I think he’s mistaken about this, Doug Elmendorf is skeptical that some cost-saving elements of the Affordable Care Act will ever be implemented. That’s the “alternative fiscal scenario” in which the debt level skyrockets.

But note that congress doesn’t need to do these things that it’s projected to do under the alternative fiscal scenario. Congress can stick to current law, and we’ll be fine. Alternatively, as Brad DeLong suggests, congress can commit to pay-as-you-go budgeting whereby if they choose to implement the large tax cuts and doctor salary increases they’re predicted to implement they offset these measures with other tax increases or spending cuts. If congress does that, we’ll be fine. This would give a successive series of congresses the opportunity to take a whack at modest ideas to increase the growth rate of health care spending.

Mustang 06-30-2010 02:05 PM

DaddyTorgo 06-30-2010 03:04 PM
lol

molson 06-30-2010 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustang (Post 2311584)

I think I've gotten that shirt as a gag gift 5 times.

It sucks 'cause I can't wear it. I mean, give me something I can use, people.

panerd 06-30-2010 03:42 PM


.

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-06-2010 07:30 PM
Interesting open letter from Zogby to Silver. Not terribly surprised to see something like this as there have been complaints related to Silver's smug commentary at times.

John Zogby: A Note to Nate

JPhillips 07-06-2010 08:16 PM
It's an advertisement. Silver has the goods on the Zogby interactive(as do lots of other folks). It's a seriously unreliable poll. Zogby's phone polls are better, but the interactive is total garbage.

Passacaglia 07-07-2010 07:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2314840)
Interesting open letter from Zogby to Silver. Not terribly surprised to see something like this as there have been complaints related to Silver's smug commentary at times.

John Zogby: A Note to Nate

I don't get how you can read the article you linked, yet think Silver is the smug one.

flere-imsaho 07-07-2010 08:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2314840)
Not terribly surprised to see something like this as there have been complaints related to Silver's smug commentary at times.

Complaints almost always from pollsters ranked low in reliability by Silver's algorithms. Or, put another way, pollsters with a factual history of unreliable polls whose unreliability is made more clear by the way Silver exposes all of his data to the public.

No sympathy. And Zogby's perhaps the worst of the well-known offenders and has been for years.

flere-imsaho 07-07-2010 08:55 AM
Silver responds: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: A Note to John Zogby

Key quote:

Quote:
Along those lines, I think you need to examine the thought process behind your interactive (Internet) polling, which any objective attempt at analysis will demonstrate has achieved vastly inferior results, beyond any shadow of a doubt. They don't do justice to the years of solid work embodied in your live-operator polls.

miked 07-07-2010 09:10 AM
Interesting goings on in Hawaii. House and senate both passed a same-sex marriage bill (allowing same rights, without recognizing marriage I believe) and it was vetoed by the republican governor. She says it's such an important issue, the people should vote on it themselves, and not the elected leaders (that already banned same sex marriage). She says it's not the job for elected officials to have closed doors meetings and legislate something of such societal importance. So my question is, what is the point of the legislators if not to represent the people?

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-07-2010 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 2315051)
I don't get how you can read the article you linked, yet think Silver is the smug one.

I read Silver's site on a daily basis. He's very smug at times and as Zogby notes, it will catch up to him.

flere-imsaho 07-07-2010 10:54 AM
Here's a considerably better critique than Zogby's op-ad(vert): Pollster.com: Rating Pollster Accuracy: How Useful?

Ronnie Dobbs2 07-07-2010 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2315089)
I read Silver's site on a daily basis. He's very smug at times and as Zogby notes, it will catch up to him.

Meh. Personally I'm glad he's not part of the back-slapping what's good for the goose is good for the gander insiders. We need more smug people in politics to cut through the bullshit.

DaddyTorgo 07-07-2010 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2315089)
I read Silver's site on a daily basis. He's very smug at times and as Zogby notes, it will catch up to him.

:lol:

JPhillips 07-12-2010 12:10 PM
Quote:
"[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes," Jon Kyl said on Fox News Sunday. "Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that's what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans."

Deficit, schmeficit. At least he didn't say all tax cuts pay for themselves.

DaddyTorgo 07-12-2010 01:31 PM
fiscal irresponsibility FTW!!!

albionmoonlight 07-12-2010 01:52 PM
No one talks about him much, but John Kyl might be my least favorite Senator for a variety of reasons, most of which are too boring to go into here.

But that quote above about taxes and spending should indicate to anyone that America will be better off when Kyl no longer represents 1% of the United States Senate.

JPhillips 07-12-2010 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2318707)
No one talks about him much, but John Kyl might be my least favorite Senator for a variety of reasons, most of which are too boring to go into here.

But that quote above about taxes and spending should indicate to anyone that America will be better off when Kyl no longer represents 1% of the United States Senate.

He's hardly alone. The McMahon commercials out of CT have her supporting a balanced budget amendment and a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, all without even mentioning a dollar of budget cuts.

JonInMiddleGA 07-12-2010 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albionmoonlight (Post 2318707)
But that quote above about taxes and spending should indicate to anyone that America will be better off when Kyl no longer represents 1% of the United States Senate.

Did you know that Kyl is actually more popular than the average US Senator?
Public Policy Polling: Senate Approval Ratings

JediKooter 07-12-2010 02:57 PM
You take his name out of there and it sounds like something Palin would say, but, you would then have to question whether or not she actually said it because it doesn't meander enough.

molson 07-12-2010 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2318721)
He's hardly alone. The McMahon commercials out of CT have her supporting a balanced budget amendment and a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, all without even mentioning a dollar of budget cuts.

I'm starting to think that McMahon campaign might actually not be just a drawn-out wrestling angle.

DaddyTorgo 07-12-2010 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2318721)
He's hardly alone. The McMahon commercials out of CT have her supporting a balanced budget amendment and a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, all without even mentioning a dollar of budget cuts.

It's called a "fuck the future...we baby boomers want to have our cake and eat it too" plan.

stevew 07-12-2010 03:14 PM
I dunno why 30 and 40 somethings want to bicker amongst ourselves about stuff like abortion, etc. The real issue is old people, and how badly the 60-70 somethings are going to fuck up our way of life over the next 20-30 years.

JPhillips 07-12-2010 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2318739)
Did you know that Kyl is actually more popular than the average US Senator?
Public Policy Polling: Senate Approval Ratings

But 43 approve/ 40 disapprove is nothing to be proud of.

JonInMiddleGA 07-12-2010 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2318763)
But 43 approve/ 40 disapprove is nothing to be proud of.

Well, relative to most Senators, it's actually pretty good.

And with disapproval ratings, I don't see much that's really meaningful. Let's see how many of those with big swings to the negative end up getting re-elected anyway. Likely there's a function of "disapprove but for very different reasons", further illustrating the depth of the divide among even residents of the same state, much less the nation. And then there's "disapprove but beats the hell out of the alternative", which is another sub-segment within those who disapprove.

DaddyTorgo 07-12-2010 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2318760)
I dunno why 30 and 40 somethings want to bicker amongst ourselves about stuff like abortion, etc. The real issue is old people, and how badly the 50-70 somethings are going to fuck up our way of life over the next 20-30 years.

Fixed - and true.

Galaxy 07-12-2010 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2318758)
It's called a "fuck the future...we baby boomers want to have our cake and eat it too" plan.


This isn't a GOP approach either. Both parties play this motto.

Generation X and Y (which is mine) seems to be blamed for being lazy and irresponsible by the Boomers, but the Boomers never seem to look in the mirror. Just remember, we "pick" the nursing home when they are old.


Only 20-to-30 years? I got a feeling it's going to a lot longer than that.

molson 07-12-2010 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2318835)

Generation X and Y (which is mine) seems to be blamed for being lazy and irresponsible by the Boomers, but the Boomers never seem to look in the mirror. Just remember, we "pick" the nursing home when they are old.

They also destroyed the environment.

Stupid old people.

DaddyTorgo 07-12-2010 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 2318838)
They also destroyed the environment.

Stupid old people.

Yup!

miked 07-13-2010 08:48 AM
With Georgia unemployment higher than the National average, as well as a state budget crisis (in that education is being cut like nobody's business), what are the potential GOP candidates arguing over?

Quote:
Less than a day after the former Alaska governor announced she is backing former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, a GOP opponent is out with a scathing campaign commercial that suggests Handel once supported abortion rights.

"She gave almost a half-million dollars to an abortion provider. And supported tax-payer benefits for gay couples. Sounds like a liberal Democrat. It's the Karen Handel you didn't know," says a new ad from John Oxendine, the state insurance commissioner who is considered the frontrunner in the race.

Rednecks everywhere rejoice!

tarcone 07-13-2010 09:20 AM
DONT TRUST ANYONE OVER 50

RainMaker 07-13-2010 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2318739)
Did you know that Kyl is actually more popular than the average US Senator?
Public Policy Polling: Senate Approval Ratings
I don't know much about Kyl, but I know he was on a one-man wrecking crew that tried to destroy internet gambling. He was and still is hated amongst anyone who likes to play some poker or bet on a sporting event online.

Ronnie Dobbs2 07-13-2010 12:01 PM
I don't want to pull a MBBF (got this from another board, so I imagine it's a talking point right now) but this really distills the tone-deafness from the Obama Administration that has really got me thinking against voting for him again.

Obama Says Middle Name May Be Source of Israeli Skepticism - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Mizzou B-ball fan 07-13-2010 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2319310)
I don't want to pull a MBBF (got this from another board, so I imagine it's a talking point right now) but this really distills the tone-deafness from the Obama Administration that has really got me thinking against voting for him again.

Obama Says Middle Name May Be Source of Israeli Skepticism - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

You may associate me with posting legitimate points from other sites anytime you wish.

JPhillips 07-14-2010 03:36 PM
Another winner from Kyl:

Quote:
"Well, one of the things we did in the health care legislation was to provide a lot of different incentives for preventive care, for screening to try to help people avoid illnesses on the theory that it would be a lot cheaper if we didn't do a lot of treatment that was unnecessary."

We?

JPhillips 07-14-2010 09:25 PM
Is Dick Cheney nearing the end of his life? This is from Talkingpointsmemo:

Quote:
I'm a surgeon and just read your wire story about Dick Cheney getting a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) placed. The story downplays the seriousness of that procedures...once you've got an LVAD in place, it means your heart is essentially incapable of working on its own and has no potential to improve. While LVAD outcomes have been improving, and some patients live months or even years with one of these devices in place, this is a HUGE operation with MAJOR associated morbidity and mortality. If he's not listed for a heart transplant, his days are seriously numbered. Life on an LVAD isn't something I'd wish on my worst enemy...an axiom that this situation really tests. He's in for a rough time.

I know congestive heart failure was the COD for my Grandmother, but she was near 90. God bless him and family.

JPhillips 07-15-2010 09:40 AM
triple dola!

Rand Paul, profile in courage:

Quote:
"No one [in the Republican Party] is forcing me to do anything. I do exactly what I want, but I am also realistic about what it takes to run a campaign and get elected."

For instance, instead of calling for the elimination of many federal departments -- as his father, Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican congressman and former presidential candidate, regularly does -- Paul says he is trying to "nibble around the edges," to "not be the person who says he will eliminate every department in the federal government. My dad freely will say that, that he would eliminate at least half of the departments, but he is just more forthright."

Swaggs 07-15-2010 09:46 AM
He sounds like an appropriate candidate to replace Jim Bunning. :)

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 10:27 AM
i do not think this word (forthright) means what he thinks it means:


forth·right
























 (fôrthrt, frth-)

adj. 1. Direct and without evasion; straightforward:


JPhillips 07-15-2010 10:49 AM
I think he's saying his dad is forthright, but he isn't.

Greyroofoo 07-15-2010 10:49 AM
Sounds to me like he's using the word in proper context, am I missing something?

lungs 07-15-2010 10:59 AM
Looks like W is coming out with a book around election time. Should be interesting. As loathed as W was, my pansy ass liberal self didn't hate W as much as a few of his advisors I felt actually ran his policy.

This book might be one I have to pick up.

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyroofoo (Post 2320540)
Sounds to me like he's using the word in proper context, am I missing something?

just saying - if his dad is more "without evasion" does that mean that he is "with evasion?"

Greyroofoo 07-15-2010 11:09 AM
I think what he means is that he and his father both have the same end goals but he's more willing to take a more pragmatic step-by-step approach rather his father's 'Lets change the whole system' rhetoric.

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 11:15 AM
Yeah - I'm sure you're right.

I'm just picking on the guy. :)

tarcone 07-15-2010 12:21 PM
Im happy Michele Obama is tackling childhood obesity. This is an important issue.

JediKooter 07-15-2010 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 2320581)
Im happy Michele Obama is tackling childhood obesity. This is an important issue.

At least she's not starting a war on drugs. ;)

rowech 07-15-2010 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 2320581)
Im happy Michele Obama is tackling childhood obesity. This is an important issue.

Yep...can't wait until government controls food distribution and what we can/can't eat.

JediKooter 07-15-2010 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2320585)
Yep...can't wait until government controls food distribution and what we can/can't eat.

It's already begun in New York City.

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2320585)
Yep...can't wait until government controls food distribution and what we can/can't eat.

you're kidding right??

Tigercat 07-15-2010 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs (Post 2320550)
Looks like W is coming out with a book around election time. Should be interesting. As loathed as W was, my pansy ass liberal self didn't hate W as much as a few of his advisors I felt actually ran his policy.

Same. I have a feeling he would have been a whole different politician if the decendents of Nixon's political tree weren't glued to him since the moment he ran for office. (Although that is not to say he would have been any more or less effective.)

rowech 07-15-2010 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2320588)
you're kidding right??

Not really. It's starting...taxes for this, taxes for that. Always starts slowly and in the name of something else.

Tigercat 07-15-2010 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2320642)
Not really. It's starting...taxes for this, taxes for that. Always starts slowly and in the name of something else.

There have been just as many wrongs committed and wrongs ignored under paranoia as under ambition.

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2320642)
Not really. It's starting...taxes for this, taxes for that. Always starts slowly and in the name of something else.

lmao


if the states want to impose taxes on people for eating unhealthily, I'm all for it. And I say that as a person who is overweight. Hit me in the pocketbook - that'd motivate me to lose some of this weight for sure!!

Now I don't think they should be putting a tax on say - salt at the supermarket, or heavy cream at the supermarket, or affecting the way that people who cook for themselves eat, but if they want to put in say a "fast food tax" or a "junk food tax" or something?? Go for it.

cartman 07-15-2010 02:34 PM
The financial reform bill passed the Senate, and is heading to the White House for Obama's signature.

AENeuman 07-15-2010 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2320585)
Yep...can't wait until government controls food distribution and what we can/can't eat.

Wouldn't more healthy people decrease gov't spending?

rowech 07-15-2010 02:46 PM
It never ceases to amaze me what people think the government should have the power to do.

AENeuman 07-15-2010 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2320667)
It never ceases to amaze me what people think the government should have the power to do.

Like give handicap parking to obese people?

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2320667)
It never ceases to amaze me what people think the government should have the power to do.

Um dude...newsflash: they already have the power to tax.

And really...for all the bitching that fat people do, they'd be a lot better off (and so would all the skinny people) if they all lost some weight (again, so says the guy who could stand to lose 50lbs). If it takes hitting them in the pocketbook to get them to do that...it's a power the government already has, so why not.

JPhillips 07-15-2010 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2320663)
The financial reform bill passed the Senate, and is heading to the White House for Obama's signature.

And the GOP has already com out saying they'll try to repeal it next year.

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2320682)
And the GOP has already com out saying they'll try to repeal it next year.

GOP - "A vote for us is a vote for people who profited off subprime mortgages and the collapse of your home values!"

ISiddiqui 07-15-2010 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2320682)
And the GOP has already com out saying they'll try to repeal it next year.

Of course they do realize that they would need the President's signature on it, right?

SirFozzie 07-15-2010 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2320689)
Of course they do realize that they would need the President's signature on it, right?

they'll have impeached him for being "one of them muslim terrrists" by then :P

SirFozzie 07-15-2010 03:28 PM
But seriously, if someone told me that 19 months ago, Obama would have passed a major healthcare expansion, and a financial regulation bill to contain the worst impulses of the financial industry that led us into a near-depression that we're just getting out of now, I'd say that's a damn good start. Anyone who expected more is completely fooling themselves as to the nature of the Washington beast.

ISiddiqui 07-15-2010 03:28 PM
Joe Biden, stealth conservative ;)

SirFozzie 07-15-2010 03:31 PM
besides, it makes them a good soundbite that means absolutely nothing. IF they get control of the House and Senate, they can point to Democrat "obstructionism" as the reason they didn't make it, and it gets the rabid base out to vote, no matter how completely unrealistic is.

Galaxy 07-15-2010 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 2320689)
Of course they do realize that they would need the President's signature on it, right?

Wouldn't that depend on if the GOP can get the 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate?

Greyroofoo 07-15-2010 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2320694)
But seriously, if someone told me that 19 months ago, Obama would have passed a major healthcare expansion, and a financial regulation bill to contain the worst impulses of the financial industry that led us into a near-depression that we're just getting out of now, I'd say that's a damn good start. Anyone who expected more is completely fooling themselves as to the nature of the Washington beast.

Now if only Obama could pass a GOOD healthcare bill he might be on to something.

I have no idea what's in the financial regulation bill, so I can only hope that my congressman actually read the bill.

ISiddiqui 07-15-2010 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2320700)
Wouldn't that depend on if the GOP can get the 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate?

They can't be that delusion to think that will happen.

And is that even possible considering the makeup of the Senate?

Ronnie Dobbs2 07-15-2010 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2315089)
I read Silver's site on a daily basis. He's very smug at times and as Zogby notes, it will catch up to him.

Sometimes, you just have to be smug.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: ARG, My Brain Hurts!

JPhillips 07-15-2010 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2320708)

Using this method I'd be willing to concede MBBF makes the most accurate predictions at FOFC.

panerd 07-15-2010 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2320667)
It never ceases to amaze me what people think the government should have the power to do.

Yep, but people like DaddyTorgo want the state to have the power to solve all the country's (world's) ills. What's another $8,000,000,000? That's "only" about another $25 for every fucking person in this country to have zero effect on peoples' shitty parenting. Or in other words "Money well spent!". It's only when the state wants to infringe on them (gay marriage, endless war in the middle east, abortion rights) that they realize the monster government basically now does whatever the hell it wants in the name of the common good. Of course I am sure the $8 billion (with a "B") won't come out of our pockets but only the evil rich. Think otherwise? You must be a wacko who wants to live in the crazy 1800's and you don't appreciate roads.


Taxpayers could spend $8 billion to make school lunches healthier | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO

Ronnie Dobbs2 07-15-2010 04:24 PM
Personal responsibility? Fuck naw, the government can handle it!

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2320713)
Yep, but people like DaddyTorgo want the state to have the power to solve all the country's (world's) ills. What's another $8,000,000,000? That's "only" about another $25 for every fucking person in this country to have zero effect on peoples' shitty parenting. Or in other words "Money well spent!". It's only when the state wants to infringe on them (gay marriage, endless war in the middle east, abortion rights) that they realize the monster government basically now does whatever the hell it wants in the name of the common good. Of course I am sure the $8 billion (with a "B") won't come out of our pockets but only the evil rich. Think otherwise? You must be a wacko who wants to live in the crazy 1800's and you don't appreciate roads.


Taxpayers could spend $8 billion to make school lunches healthier | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO

Sorry - let's have overweight kids who develop expensive health problems early in life and who (if they're on school lunch programs) are likely going to end up either living taxpayer subsidized lives (thru welfare or thru taxpayer subidized healthcare). Or is the notion that $8bn in costs now could save us $20bn in costs later completely incomprehensible to you??

NB: $8bn sounds like a hell of a lot for school lunch improvements, even to me.

panerd 07-15-2010 04:27 PM
By the way what exactly would panerd do about child obesity? End the government?

1. Stop subsidizing corn farmers (i.e. Fast food's drug dealers)
2. Stop paying for medical problems caused by obesity. Get diabetes from eating too much? Hit the fucking treadmill.
3. If government wants to run healthcare then establish a health savings account for every dependent family. It's amazing how much more healthy people can be when it is "their own money" and not another handout.
4. Stop shoving things like No Child Left Behind down elementary school's throats when in turn causes them to cut out recess and sports programs so teachers can teach to the math test. (i.e. teach kids nothing since they don't teach any critical thinking skills)...

panerd 07-15-2010 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2320716)

NB: $8bn sounds like a hell of a lot for school lunch improvements, even to me.

No shit. If all of these utopian ideas were not so fucking expensive I might be on board for some of them. Sorry but the $8,000,000,000 lunch program will not save $20,000,000,000. In fact in probably won't save $0.01. It will create more buracracy and committees.

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2320718)
By the way what exactly would panerd do about child obesity? End the government?

1. Stop subsidizing corn farmers (i.e. Fast food's drug dealers)
2. Stop paying for medical problems caused by obesity. Get diabetes from eating too much? Hit the fucking treadmill.
3. If government wants to run healthcare then establish a health savings account for every dependent family. It's amazing how much more healthy people can be when it is "their own money" and not another handout.
4. Stop shoving things like No Child Left Behind down elementary school's throats when in turn causes them to cut out recess and sports programs so teachers can teach to the math test. (i.e. teach kids nothing since they don't teach any critical thinking skills)...

Unfortunately hitting the treadmill won't cure diabetes.

I agree about the corn farmsers though. And as far as #3, as long as you're advocating that the HSA be privitized and invested in the stock market or some republican-BS then I agree with you that's fine too. Agree with you on #4 too.

Shocking - see...we can agree on stuff.

panerd 07-15-2010 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2320717)
There's a strong part of me that wishes there would just be an agreement right now...US split up into the two camps and you choose which side you want to be on. Once you're on it, you aren't coming back. Area of the country can be distributed out based upon population in each camp.

Instead the voters are convinced the Republicans will come save them this fall and in 2012 when it will instead be more same bullshit like this from the other side. (more religion!, more war!, more government funded parenting!)

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rowech (Post 2320717)
There's a strong part of me that wishes there would just be an agreement right now...US split up into the two camps and you choose which side you want to be on. Once you're on it, you aren't coming back. Area of the country can be distributed out based upon population in each camp.

Jon and I have had this discussion before...many times.

Frankly, I don't think there's many on either side who would disagree with it.

It'd work out well for me, I can tell you that. I pay in to the system far more than I get back from the system, being in a "net-outflow" state.

panerd 07-15-2010 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2320720)
Unfortunately hitting the treadmill won't cure diabetes.

I agree about the corn farmsers though. And as far as #3, as long as you're advocating that the HSA be privitized and invested in the stock market or some republican-BS then I agree with you that's fine too. Agree with you on #4 too.

Shocking - see...we can agree on stuff.

Type 2 diabetes in fat people is almost always caused by lifestyle. I didn't say all diabetes, I said health problems caused by being obese.

DaddyTorgo 07-15-2010 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2320723)
Type 2 diabetes in fat people is almost always caused by lifestyle. I didn't say all diabetes, I said health problems caused by being obese.

But once you have it you can't get rid of it by losing weight is my point.

JPhillips 07-15-2010 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2320724)
But once you have it you can't get rid of it by losing weight is my point.

Well fuck em. They shouldn't have gotten fat.

JPhillips 07-15-2010 04:43 PM
And people who get injured while exercising? Fuck them too. They shouldn't have been trying to get skinny.

JPhillips 07-15-2010 04:44 PM
ANd motorcycle injuries. Fuck them, they should have stayed home.

AENeuman 07-15-2010 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2320718)
By the way what exactly would panerd do about child obesity? End the government?

1. Stop subsidizing corn farmers (i.e. Fast food's drug dealers)
2. Stop paying for medical problems caused by obesity. Get diabetes from eating too much? Hit the fucking treadmill.

Plug the damn hole!...why didn't anyone else think of that?

JonInMiddleGA 07-15-2010 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2320721)
Instead the voters are convinced the Republicans will come save them this fall and in 2012 when it will instead be more same bullshit like this from the other side. (more religion!, more war!, more government funded parenting!)

Although you've poorly paraphrased it, that's why a large portion of us are voting for them in the first place, so it's got that going for it.

JonInMiddleGA 07-15-2010 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2320687)
GOP - "A vote for us is a vote for people who profited off subprime mortgages and the collapse of your home values!"

I think a good bit more of those folks than the deadbeats who took the mortgages, so again, it's got that going for it.

JonInMiddleGA 07-15-2010 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarcone (Post 2320581)
Im happy Michele Obama is tackling childhood obesity. This is an important issue.

LOL

panerd 07-15-2010 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2320726)
And people who get injured while exercising? Fuck them too. They shouldn't have been trying to get skinny.

Yeah this is the cause of America's obesity problem. Go post another Rand Paul mass media article talking about all of his "empty promises". The thread is the Obama presidency, the epitome of empty promises.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 PM.
Page 101 of 264 « First < 51919293949596979899100 101 102103104105106107108109110111151201 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.