U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Angella]

I never understood the Romney talking point of "I have experience in the private sector." You'd think anyone with half a brain would go: "Hmmm...Big Business having more authority in Washington than it does already MUST BE THE ANSWER!"

Better big business than no business (i.e. Obama). Ideally you want small business in there.

---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 07:31 AM ----------

Rachel Maddow put it the best: If Churches want to become Health Insurance companies, then they have to follow the rules of that industry. I'm personally getting really tired of people going "LOL FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION" to justify any racist, homophobic, sexist, classist, bigoted things Churches have been doing (Catholic or otherwise).

Lol. Because Maddow is a trustworthy, unbiased source right? Having a moral qualm with doing something you believe to be killing someone sounds perfectly fine to me. The idea that there isn't room for reasoned disagreement on social issues and that there isn't room in the US to multiple structures to co-exist is a very liberal idealogy.

[Dacien]

But... isn't that how politics works? I mean maybe I'm not seeing something here, but blowing up extremely small issues into major 'problems' is about all politicians have done when trying to get elected.

And that's fine. But we're perfectly reasonable putting those attacks down.

[KrazyK923]

Better big business than no business (i.e. Obama). Ideally you want small business in there.

Because that's went so well with Bush and his cronies. I fail to see what Obama's negative impact on "business" has been outside of the Republican talking point of "IT CREATES UNCERTAINTY! UNCERTAINTY!"

That's just code for: "We're waiting for a Republican to get into office so we can bring our cash back in from off seas without being taxed."

Lol. Because Maddow is a trustworthy, unbiased source right? Having a moral qualm with doing something you believe to be killing someone sounds perfectly fine to me. The idea that there isn't room for reasoned disagreement on social issues and that there isn't room in the US to multiple structures to co-exist is a very liberal idealogy.

When did I say she was unbiased? I said she put it the best way that I agree with. "Reasoned disagreement" like killing abortion doctors and trying to legislate women's bodies while simultaneously screaming about government overreach? Or how about telling me what I can do with the person I love in the privacy of my own home -or- getting legal benefits with that person just because we both have a penis? Or how about the consistent attempts at pushing religion into public domains and then crying about war on Christmas/religions when people go "Uhhh----what about that thing?" and point to the Constitution? I could really go on and on. I'd hold your opinion with regards to the bolded sentence with more weight if the other side was even trying to do the same. Right now they're just crying about something they're doing when it's thrown back at them.

[obdigore]

And that's fine. But we're perfectly reasonable putting those attacks down.

Identifying yourself with the Romney Establishment already? Oh Dacien! :P

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with running commercials that counter those attack commercials. Just remember that Humans by nature remember the bad more than the good, at least in my opinion.

[Wells]

Naw, but it is to try to take a sliver of the massive amounts of activity that Bain Capital was involved in, blow it up on a projector, and point to it and say that's what they're all about.

How much of their business do you think was "corporate restructuring"?

No just couldn't help noticing how your opinion had changed over time

Only someone who nitpicks as hard as you would find anything of note between the two. I get really tired of humoring your nonsense.

Care to answer my question?

Why? you're just going to spend pages quibbling over what constitutes "extremely".

[Angella]

Because that's went so well with Bush and his cronies. I fail to see what Obama's negative impact on "business" has been outside of the Republican talking point of "IT CREATES UNCERTAINTY! UNCERTAINTY!"

That's just code for: "We're waiting for a Republican to get into office so we can bring our cash back in from off seas without being taxed."

I'll use my industry as an example. In medical devices Obama has brought in a 2.4% revenue tax - aka a tax lobbied before any profit is made. It ends up being about 4-5% on big med dev companies and more like 15-20% on small med dev companies. Then Obamacare has put the screws on hospitals, which are now making 2% GPM instead of 7% GPM. So new med dev technology is no longer being accepted regardless of benefit. Then hospitals owned by physicians can no longer expand their physical buildings via regulatory edict. Aka Obama doesn't believe in the physician-owned hospital anymore and would rather all physicians be employees of big hospital systems. This removes an advocate for the patient and allows for lower healthcare reimbursements via Medicare to be implemented without a doctor revolt.

What ultimately happens is we see sales overseas and not in the US anymore. Thanks Obama on that one.

Obama is the most toxic thing to happen to healthcare and medical devices in particular ever. And I mean ever.

---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 07:40 AM ----------

Because that's went so well with Bush and his cronies. I fail to see what Obama's negative impact on "business" has been outside of the Republican talking point of "IT CREATES UNCERTAINTY! UNCERTAINTY!"

That's just code for: "We're waiting for a Republican to get into office so we can bring our cash back in from off seas without being taxed."



When did I say she was unbiased? I said she put it the best way that I agree with. "Reasoned disagreement" like killing abortion doctors and trying to legislate women's bodies while simultaneously screaming about government overreach? Or how about telling me what I can do with the person I love in the privacy of my own home -or- getting legal benefits with that person just because we both have a penis? Or how about the consistent attempts at pushing religion into public domains and then crying about war on Christmas/religions when people go "Uhhh----what about that thing?" and point to the Constitution? I could really go on and on. I'd hold your opinion with regards to the bolded sentence with more weight if the other side was even trying to do the same. Right now they're just crying about something they're doing when it's thrown back at them.

So its OK for Obama to do it because some Reps are doing it? Is that really the best you got? Those guys are evil so I'll be evil too? Come on.

[KrazyK923]

I'll use my industry as an example. In medical devices Obama has brought in a 2.4% revenue tax - aka a tax lobbied before any profit is made. It ends up being about 4-5% on big med dev companies and more like 15-20% on small med dev companies. Then Obamacare has put the screws on hospitals, which are now making 2% GPM instead of 7% GPM. So new med dev technology is no longer being accepted regardless of benefit. Then hospitals owned by physicians can no longer expand their physical buildings via regulatory edict. Aka Obama doesn't believe in the physician-owned hospital anymore and would rather all physicians be employees of big hospital systems. This removes an advocate for the patient and allows for lower healthcare reimbursements via Medicare to be implemented without a doctor revolt.

What ultimately happens is we see sales overseas and not in the US anymore. Thanks Obama on that one.

Obama is the most toxic thing to happen to healthcare and medical devices in particular ever. And I mean ever.

---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 07:40 AM ----------



So its OK for Obama to do it because some Reps are doing it? Is that really the best you got? Those guys are evil so I'll be evil too? Come on.

I can't comment on the Health Care industry because I'm not in it, and I have no wish to scour the googles for hours to pretend that I know about something that I am ignorant of.

So...at least you admit that they are doing. And yes, in this specific case, I would completely fine with Obama playing the Republican's game. I'm sick and tired of Democrats PRETENDING to take the high road and not do what the Republicans have been doing to them for 30 years. That and I love watching John Boehner and the other Republicans squeal like pigs when the Democrats do the exact same back to them (Like Obama using the Prayer breakfast to reinforce his tax ideas--Oh lord, the squealing was so fantastically amazing).

[Merkava]

Why? you're just going to spend pages quibbling over what constitutes "extremely".

You really need to learn to expect people to point out when you say something that's incorrect. You need to be prepared to offer evidence to back up claims that you make. That's all. Don't take it personally, just hold yourself to the same standard that you expect and ask of others.

[Angella]

And yes, in this specific case,

Unfortunately if you believe this stance justified here you need to believe its justified in other circumstances too. Otherwise you're just being hypocritical. This isn't a policy position or something more nuanced. This is a tactic. Tactics span policies and personalities. Being evil should never be an option.

[KrazyK923]

Unfortunately if you believe this stance justified here you need to believe its justified in other circumstances too. Otherwise you're just being hypocritical. This isn't a policy position or something more nuanced. This is a tactic. Tactics span policies and personalities. Being evil should never be an option.

Yet again you're completely fine with the Republicans doing it, though, and condemning the Democrats when they attempt to? I never said it was right when EITHER side does it. I simply said that if Republicans want to do it, then the Democrats should instead of wailing about how things aren't fair while they're beating repeatedly bent over a chair and screwed. Politics in the United States are fucking awful, disgusting, and pain me as a Human being. But if one side will absolutely refuse to play fair, then the other side has no choice but to jump down in the muck and join them.

[Wells]

You really need to learn to expect people to point out when you say something that's incorrect.

That's the thing about you, you don't actually address arguments, you pick on a random point until no one wants to talk to you. See: Bush and Osama.

You need to be prepared to offer evidence to back up claims that you make.

Dacien help me out here. Maybe merkava my distain for debating with you has more to do with the lack of quality in the debate you bring.

[Angella]

Yet again you're completely fine with the Republicans doing it, though, and condemning the Democrats when they attempt to? I never said it was right when EITHER side does it. I simply said that if Republicans want to do it, then the Democrats should instead of wailing about how things aren't fair while they're beating repeatedly bent over a chair and screwed. Politics in the United States are fucking awful, disgusting, and pain me as a Human being. But if one side will absolutely refuse to play fair, then the other side has no choice but to jump down in the muck and join them.

Pretty sure I never said it was OK for Reps to do it. Pretty sure I called Reps doing it evil. Pretty sure you're pulling a classic straw-man here and assigning positions to me that are easy to attack. Also classic liberal.

As a mater of policy, I think Catholics can have their contraception-free policies and Seculars can have their contraception-filled policies and the two systems can overlap without much fuss. Its been that way for many years and the world kept turning. Its not like either Catholics or Secular groups have a monopoly on contraception services.

[KrazyK923]

Pretty sure I never said it was OK for Reps to do it. Pretty sure I called Reps doing it evil. Pretty sure you're pulling a classic straw-man here and assigning positions to me that are easy to attack. Also classic liberal.

As a mater of policy, I think Catholics can have their contraception-free policies and Seculars can have their contraception-filled policies and the two systems can overlap without much fuss. Its been that way for many years and the world kept turning. Its not like either Catholics or Secular groups have a monopoly on contraception services.

If the bold is true then I apologize, but the italicized is why I assumed you felt that position. You don't do yourself any favors with statements like that.

The problem with the Contraception argument is that the "secular" institutions more often than not are nowhere near as wide spread as the "religious" ones and, as such, reach a much greater amount of people. The argument of "Well they can go somewhere else" never really holds much weight. People who are poor/disabled/young (Teenagers) don't really have the financial or physical opportunities to drive an hour to get a condom through some insurance company. Frankly, it just seems like another way that the Church wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be hands-off from the government in terms of tax status and regulation while at the same time trying to directly influence candidates/elections in order to maintain the power that they have gained. And then they cry and rile up hatred in their congregations when somebody tries to make them have it one way or the other. I'm sorry, but, again, if you want to be an Insurance Company, then follow the same rules that their industry does.

If you want to be a Church, then be a Church. You'd figure that Church figureheads would want people to use contraception and not bring children into the world who have a large possibility to go hungry or die because of a lack of a financial situation. This isn't even related to abortion, because the child is not alive. Unless we're counting that birth begins at ejaculation.

[Merkava]

That's the thing about you, you don't actually address arguments, you pick on a random point until no one wants to talk to you. See: Bush and Osama.

When does it become a "random point"? When you type it? Or when someone points out that it's wrong? Or not until they ask for proof?

Dacien help me out here. Maybe merkava my distain for debating with you has more to do with the lack of quality in the debate you bring.

Wells, it's nothing personal with you. You have a history of asking people to provide proof for their claims. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just asking that you do the same.

[obdigore]

If you want to be a Church, then be a Church. You'd figure that Church figureheads would want people to use contraception and not bring children into the world who have a large possibility to go hungry or die because of a lack of a financial situation. This isn't even related to abortion, because the child is not alive. Unless we're counting that birth begins at ejaculation.

The bible says to spread humanity and fill the world, which is the main voice against contraception in religion. And yes most christian religions believe that birth life begins at conception.

I'm unsure how 'Obama' is forcing Catholics to give out contraceptives? Anyone have a link or anything?

[KrazyK923]

The bible says to spread humanity and fill the world, which is the main voice against contraception in religion. And yes most christian religions believe that birth life begins at conception.

I'm unsure how 'Obama' is forcing Catholics to give out contraceptives? Anyone have a link or anything?

Conception =/= ejaculation.

[obdigore]

Conception =/= ejaculation.

I didn't say it did. I said most christian organizations don't believe in contraceptives because the bible says to 'multiply and be fruitful' and most dont believe in abortion because they think that life begins at Conception.

PS -> The bible also says it is better to ejaculate in a whore than to masturbate, so how so many can be against extra-marital sex I just don't know! :P

[Wells]

When does it become a "random point"? When you type it? Or when someone points out that it's wrong? Or not until they ask for proof?

When its relevant.

Wells, it's nothing personal with you. You have a history of asking people to provide proof for their claims. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just asking that you do the same.

When the debate is worthwhile I do.

[Merkava]

You said I pick on random points that you make. I asked when your points become "random." And you reply that points become random

When its relevant.

That makes no sense. Anyways, perhaps I hold my own prose in too high regard, but none of my points are random. Feel free to question me on the veracity or relevancy of any of them. And I've been in plenty of heated and not so heated discussions on here, and haven't come across anyone that is so quick to relegate their own points to "random" status as you are.

[Wells]

You said I pick on random points that you make.

For instance, you brought up a post of mine from june because of a different wording. Or the 20 pages you wasted on Bush and Osama.

Your MO is to find a single tiny thing you can harp on, usually a word you choose to take as literally as possible and then hound on it until no one wants to bother. You routinely ignore the actual substance of arguments, like when we were discussing electoral strategy a few weeks back and you wanted to go on and on about 2010 and 2010 only, ignoring the point I was making until you made my argument for me.