|
I am curious. What loss of freedom?Mandatory health care for individuals. Mandatory employer-employee health care relationship for businesses.
Also, I don't know if you supported McCain, but you might wan to bear in mind that Sarah Palin was probably the most inexperienced person ever to be that close to being an old man's heartbeat away from being president. Hopefully that makes sense.How is a governor, someone who has held both local and state executive positions, less qualified for federal executive than a single-term freshman senator?
Lefties love pounding that bit of disingenuous rhetoric. Do I know that Obama had far less experience than she? Yes.
Neither one of them should have been anywhere near the race, frankly.
I am curious. What loss of freedom?Mandatory health care for individuals. Mandatory employer-employee health care relationship for businesses.
Also, I don't know if you supported McCain, but you might wan to bear in mind that Sarah Palin was probably the most inexperienced person ever to be that close to being an old man's heartbeat away from being president. Hopefully that makes sense.How is a governor, someone who has held both local and state executive positions, less qualified for federal executive than a single-term freshman senator?Lefties love pounding that bit of disingenuous rhetoric. Do I know that Obama had far less experience than she? Yes.
Neither one of them should have been anywhere near the race, frankly.
I don't have a problem with either of them being near the race. The primary purpose of the President is to look and sound good; they're both charismatic people. Neither of them could run the country for five minutes without the help of very competent aids and advisors, but no President has done anything resembling that in a century anyway.
More meaningfully, I would never vote for either of them because I don't like either of them. Obama is an opportunistic liar. Palin is an underinformed bigot. No thank you, in either case.
I am curious. What loss of freedom?Mandatory health care for individuals. Mandatory employer-employee health care relationship for businesses.
Also, I don't know if you supported McCain, but you might wan to bear in mind that Sarah Palin was probably the most inexperienced person ever to be that close to being an old man's heartbeat away from being president. Hopefully that makes sense.How is a governor, someone who has held both local and state executive positions, less qualified for federal executive than a single-term freshman senator?
When said governor was governor for two years, this being her only position.
Also, getting health care is just good sense. There are many provisions to make health care more affordable, and a lot of options that would have helped a lot more were branded 'socialism' and struck down. Besides which, this takes effect in 2014. So you have four years to prepare for it. They don't just spring it on you or anything. The Democrats chickened out, but they kept this.
Anyone who attacks Obama's experience but gives Palin a free pass is not evaluating the situation fairly.
Just pointing it out.
Also, getting health care is just good sense.
Ah, the "for your own good" rhetoric. What a very liberal way of looking at the world.
Unfortunately, I'm of the "my money, my decision" school of thought -- small-government conservative, in other words.There are many provisions to make health care more affordable, and a lot of options that would have helped a lot more were branded 'socialism' and struck down.
Health care isn't going to become more affordable; it's going to become a nightmare.
And piling more unfunded mandates on American businesses isn't the best way to decrease American unemployment. Everything you do that makes it more expensive for me to hire someone, means fewer people will be hired.Besides which, this takes effect in 2014. So you have four years to prepare for it. They don't just spring it on you or anything.
Except that the tax hikes kick in earlier than that -- since they realize that the only way to even pay for the first six years of the program is to tax us for ten.
Giving the government more of our money to waste is a bad idea. If health insurance is broken due to state regulation, fix it -- don't socialize it. That never works.
Mandatory health care for individuals.
There's a couple different ways to respond to that; here are a few:
1) You're still free, post-bill, to not get health care -- you just have to pay an additional tax if you make that choice.
or:
2) In the sense that you give up the freedom to not have health insurance, you also gain the freedom to not be bankrupt because you have an expensive medical condition, etc.
Freedom is always a hard thing to measure honestly in a modern society -- in practical terms, it's almost always a matter of give and take. Traffic laws take away my freedom to drive on whichever side of the road I want, but in exchange I get the freedom to travel around the area much more quickly/safely than without them.
How is a governor, someone who has held both local and state executive positions, less qualified for federal executive than a single-term freshman senator?
Without giving Obama a free pass, consider that he also had three terms as an Illinois state senator, was president of the Harvard Law Review, was a constitutional law professor, and a number of other things. I'm not saying those things provide the same kind of experience as being a state executive, but I don't think you can seriously argue that being a legal expert on a national level or being an expert on the Constitution are useless resume filler for a job that's charged with execution of the law.
Unfortunately, I'm of the "my money, my decision" school of thought -- small-government conservative, in other words.
Out of genuine curiousity, given that, how do you decide who to vote for, given that neither major political party has been anywhere remotely near those values in at least 30 years?
Basically, you're choosing between the party that doesn't say it's about small government conservatism, and isn't, and the party that says it is, and also isn't.
I removed several posts. A large number that were duplicates, and a couple that might have made the Secret Service come calling.
Out of genuine curiousity, given that, how do you decide who to vote for, given that neither major political party has been anywhere remotely near those values in at least 30 years?Unfortunately, I'm of the "my money, my decision" school of thought -- small-government conservative, in other words.
I usually vote Republican, on the basis that most of the time they don't make things too much worse -- while the Dem candidates are almost always running on a platform which affirmatively vows to make government even bigger.
In other words, I vote Republican because I'm usually voting against the platform of the more liberal candidate.It doesn't mean I'm happy when Bush and the Republican congress goes ahead and expands government. Quite the opposite. But I still think it's usually better than the alternative. And at least this time, I was clearly correct.
Out of genuine curiousity, given that, how do you decide who to vote for, given that neither major political party has been anywhere remotely near those values in at least 30 years?Unfortunately, I'm of the "my money, my decision" school of thought -- small-government conservative, in other words.
I usually vote Republican, on the basis that most of the time they don't make things too much worse -- while the Dem candidates are almost always running on a platform which affirmatively vows to make government even bigger.
In other words, I vote Republican because I'm usually voting against the platform of the more liberal candidate.
It doesn't mean I'm happy when Bush and the Republican congress goes ahead and expands government. Quite the opposite. But I still think it's usually better than the alternative. And at least this time, I was clearly correct.
There is little evidence to back up this assertion other than the party you would have wanted to win winning. I really don't see the McCain/Palin ticket doing anything to shrink government in the slightest.
Still, you vote against people, not for them by your own admission, so maybe we are going to the ballot box for different reasons.
The people of Australia are wonderful people.
Australia....isn't that a penal colony?
^_~
But I still think it's usually better than the alternative. And at least this time, I was clearly correct.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but I'm not sure how you can even make a coherent argument for that.
I mean, Patriot Act? Department of Homeland Security?
Maybe those are government expansions / power grabs you agree with, and therefore they're somehow exempt from accounting, I don't know -- but I don't think there's any intellectually honest way to not view them as bigger affronts to small government than anything that's happened in the Obama administration.
On a side note, I find it funny that the only time a president's citizenship was questioned in my recent memory was when a African American was elected for the job. Also, where was all this bemoaning of spending when Bush was in office?
Out of genuine curiousity, given that, how do you decide who to vote for, given that neither major political party has been anywhere remotely near those values in at least 30 years?Unfortunately, I'm of the "my money, my decision" school of thought -- small-government conservative, in other words.
I usually vote Republican, on the basis that most of the time they don't make things too much worse -- while the Dem candidates are almost always running on a platform which affirmatively vows to make government even bigger.
In other words, I vote Republican because I'm usually voting against the platform of the more liberal candidate.
It doesn't mean I'm happy when Bush and the Republican congress goes ahead and expands government. Quite the opposite. But I still think it's usually better than the alternative. And at least this time, I was clearly correct.There is little evidence to back up this assertion other than the party you would have wanted to win winning. I really don't see the McCain/Palin ticket doing anything to shrink government in the slightest.
Still, you vote against people, not for them by your own admission, so maybe we are going to the ballot box for different reasons.
Me neither, but I see several ways in which the Dems have affirmatively grown government which the McCain/Palin ticket would not have done. Therefore, in this case, my logic of voting against the party who in fulfilling their campaign promises will do exactly the opposite of what I want was sound.
If McCain had done nothing at all from his inauguration to the present, things would be much closer to how I want them than they are today.
|
Also, I don't know if you supported McCain, but you might want to bear in mind that Sarah Palin was probably the most inexperienced person ever to be that close to being an old man's heartbeat away from being president. Hopefully that makes sense. There were few complaints then.
1) Few complaints? Are you f'n kidding me?
2) Yup, she was very inexperienced. Almost as much so as the junior senator from Illinois was.
On a side note, I find it funny that the only time a president's citizenship was questioned in my recent memory was when a African American was elected for the job. Also, where was all this bemoaning of spending when Bush was in office?
The former has already been debated and argued to death. Me, I file it away under "things that make you go HMMMMMMMMmmmmmm..." and leave it at that.
To the latter, many Tea Party advocates feel that the birth of their movement has something to do with the frustrations felt by many towards Bush II's spending policies. As to where they were PHYSICALLY during that time period is anyone's guess.
On a side note, I find it funny that the only time a president's citizenship was questioned in my recent memory was when a African American was elected for the job.
When was the last time a President was elected who did not have two U.S. citizens as parents?
I sincerely don't think that has anything to do with racism -- it has to do with the fact that Obama, unlike most candidates in recent memory, had a pedigree and childhood with a lot of non-American ties. He didn't grow up in the States from parents who grew up in the States, like our past Presidents.If Obama had come from a three-generation Chicago family with roots back to American slavery, his citizenship would have never come into question immaterial of his race.
Also, where was all this bemoaning of spending when Bush was in office?
It was there. But you do realize that as bad as Bush's spending was, Obama has set a budget that's an entire order of magnitude greater than Bush, right? Obama's proposed expenditures are sending us faster into debt than any President in history, ever, period. Someone could reasonably consider Bush's level of spending acceptable (I don't) and still call Obama's excessive, simply by having a threshold for deficit spending that is somewhere between the two -- a very broad range.
It was there. But you do realize that as bad as Bush's spending was, Obama has set a budget that's an entire order of magnitude greater than Bush, right? Obama's proposed expenditures are sending us faster into debt than any President in history, ever, period.
I'd be interested to see your numbers and how you've sliced that up for it to be true.
Obama still has a long, long way to go to triple the deficit he started with, for example, something Reagan did and is for some reason regarded as a fiscal conservative for in some circles.
Out of genuine curiousity, given that, how do you decide who to vote for, given that neither major political party has been anywhere remotely near those values in at least 30 years?Unfortunately, I'm of the "my money, my decision" school of thought -- small-government conservative, in other words.
I usually vote Republican, on the basis that most of the time they don't make things too much worse -- while the Dem candidates are almost always running on a platform which affirmatively vows to make government even bigger.
In other words, I vote Republican because I'm usually voting against the platform of the more liberal candidate.
It doesn't mean I'm happy when Bush and the Republican congress goes ahead and expands government. Quite the opposite. But I still think it's usually better than the alternative. And at least this time, I was clearly correct.There is little evidence to back up this assertion other than the party you would have wanted to win winning. I really don't see the McCain/Palin ticket doing anything to shrink government in the slightest.
Still, you vote against people, not for them by your own admission, so maybe we are going to the ballot box for different reasons.
Me neither, but I see several ways in which the Dems have affirmatively grown government which the McCain/Palin ticket would not have done. Therefore, in this case, my logic of voting against the party who in fulfilling their campaign promises will do exactly the opposite of what I want was sound.
If McCain had done nothing at all from his inauguration to the present, things would be much closer to how I want them than they are today.
It is unfortunate, but it seems we are at cross purposes. It saddens me to think that the way our government is set up, all we are going to do is essentially wash out one another's vote.
It was there. But you do realize that as bad as Bush's spending was, Obama has set a budget that's an entire order of magnitude greater than Bush, right? Obama's proposed expenditures are sending us faster into debt than any President in history, ever, period.I'd be interested to see your numbers and how you've sliced that up for it to be true.
Obama still has a long, long way to go to triple the deficit he started with, for example, something Reagan did and is for some reason regarded as a fiscal conservative for in some circles.
Here's a Youtube video explaining the relative deficit spending since the turn of last century.
But I still think it's usually better than the alternative. And at least this time, I was clearly correct.I don't mean to be dismissive, but I'm not sure how you can even make a coherent argument for that.
I mean, Patriot Act? Department of Homeland Security?
Maybe those are government expansions / power grabs you agree with, and therefore they're somehow exempt from accounting, I don't know -- but I don't think there's any intellectually honest way to not view them as bigger affronts to small government than anything that's happened in the Obama administration.
You got the Patriot Act down. Let me say this from a banker's perspective who had seen that in play since it was put into place up until I was let go earlier this year. A lot of you would be amazed. Dumbfounded. Aghast. To know exactly what the banks are required to share with the government regarding monetary transactions and your personal / private information in order to play ball with the government and maintain its existence and backed by the FDIC. People piss and moan about loss of freedom during the Obama administration have no idea what they've agreed to give up just for the perception of feeling a little safer after 9/11 when the GOP was in power.
Piss and moan all you want about trillion dollar spending and health care costs; just remember how much money was blindly thrown into the war machine to go into a country that we had no business being in. There were Saudis being financed by folks out of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. But let's place the blame on Iraq. Why? Their skin color's similar. And they have oil. And scores needed to be settled. It was to slake the corporate infrastructure thirst and settle scores second.
Smoke and mirrors and grape kool-aid.
It is unfortunate, but it seems we are at cross purposes. It saddens me to think that the way our government is set up, all we are going to do is essentially wash out one another's vote.
Fortunately, our individual voting power isn't the only part of the system. It's also set up with the First Amendment in place.
Yes, my vote and yours directly wash out -- but what about the ten other people that you convince to go to the polls and vote your way? That's why the key to making a difference in the U.S. isn't just voting, but campaigning.
Oil from Afganistan? I thought it was heroin we got from there.
Opium abound! But what Afghanistan does have that's needed is the land needed to put up pipelines to ship merch from one country to another ... and they happen to be the landmass in the middle. Kinda like what Canada's purpose is for the U.S. to bring down that black gold from Alaska.
Wasn't Palin working on that? How is she doing with that, anyway?
Oh, wait...
Good to know how effective the liberal attack machine is. Let's see how many more politicians we can get to resign with enough resources poured into dishonest journalism and frivolous litigation...
Good to know how effective the liberal attack machine is. Let's see how many more politicians we can get to resign with enough resources poured into dishonest journalism and frivolous litigation...
That's not really a fair account of what happened with Palin and her ethics probes.
Unless the Alaska Republican party is part of the liberal attack machine?
|
|
*Health care has nothing to do with doctors or medicine. Health care involves the following-
1) Get 7-8 hours of restful sleep every night
2) Eat good nutritious food for your body type in moderation
3) Avoid accidents
4) Take whatever vitamin/nutritional supplements you can't get from your food
This is what Republicans believe.
But I still think it's usually better than the alternative. And at least this time, I was clearly correct.I don't mean to be dismissive, but I'm not sure how you can even make a coherent argument for that.
I mean, Patriot Act? Department of Homeland Security?
Maybe those are government expansions / power grabs you agree with, and therefore they're somehow exempt from accounting, I don't know -- but I don't think there's any intellectually honest way to not view them as bigger affronts to small government than anything that's happened in the Obama administration.
You got the Patriot Act down. Let me say this from a banker's perspective who had seen that in play since it was put into place up until I was let go earlier this year. A lot of you would be amazed. Dumbfounded. Aghast. To know exactly what the banks are required to share with the government regarding monetary transactions and your personal / private information in order to play ball with the government and maintain its existence and backed by the FDIC. People piss and moan about loss of freedom during the Obama administration have no idea what they've agreed to give up just for the perception of feeling a little safer after 9/11 when the GOP was in power.
Piss and moan all you want about trillion dollar spending and health care costs; just remember how much money was blindly thrown into the war machine to go into a country that we had no business being in. There were Saudis being financed by folks out of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. But let's place the blame on Iraq. Why? Their skin color's similar. And they have oil. And scores needed to be settled. It was to slake the corporate infrastructure thirst and settle scores second.
Smoke and mirrors and grape kool-aid.
I always find it stange how people point out the patriot act about how bush is worse than obama, except ..., obama is still using those policies. If obama had come in and said, "Hold it, all that stuff we did before. Well it was wrong, and we won't do it anymore." I would understand the attitude, but he didn't.
So for some the kool-aid flavor is Wild Barry Hawaiian Punch.
I always find it stange how people point out the patriot act about how bush is worse than obama, except ..., obama is still using those policies. If obama...But I still think it's usually better than the alternative. And at least this time, I was clearly correct.I don't mean to be dismissive, but I'm not sure how you can even make a coherent argument for that.
I mean, Patriot Act? Department of Homeland Security?
Maybe those are government expansions / power grabs you agree with, and therefore they're somehow exempt from accounting, I don't know -- but I don't think there's any intellectually honest way to not view them as bigger affronts to small government than anything that's happened in the Obama administration.
You got the Patriot Act down. Let me say this from a banker's perspective who had seen that in play since it was put into place up until I was let go earlier this year. A lot of you would be amazed. Dumbfounded. Aghast. To know exactly what the banks are required to share with the government regarding monetary transactions and your personal / private information in order to play ball with the government and maintain its existence and backed by the FDIC. People piss and moan about loss of freedom during the Obama administration have no idea what they've agreed to give up just for the perception of feeling a little safer after 9/11 when the GOP was in power.
Piss and moan all you want about trillion dollar spending and health care costs; just remember how much money was blindly thrown into the war machine to go into a country that we had no business being in. There were Saudis being financed by folks out of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. But let's place the blame on Iraq. Why? Their skin color's similar. And they have oil. And scores needed to be settled. It was to slake the corporate infrastructure thirst and settle scores second.
Smoke and mirrors and grape kool-aid.
YUM! Wild Barry!
Seriously though, I do take issue with him for this. My main question is though, CAN he stop the Patriot Act? Or is this something that might be beyond the office of President at this point?
Obama said we should forgive the torturing that Bush himself condoned, because this is 'the post partisan age'. So I'm not too hopeful of him trying to directly fix any of Bush's mistakes.
Mr. Obama is the chief of the Executive Branch. The PATRIOT Act lets him do things; nothing in the PATRIOT Act forces him to do any of those things.
He could issue an Executive Order tomorrow which would effectively void the Act by instructing federal law enforcement to only do things they could do before the Act. He could unilaterally eviscerate any improper part of the Act tomorrow.
He's not doing that.
|
|
This is what Republicans believe.*Health care has nothing to do with doctors or medicine. Health care involves the following-
1) Get 7-8 hours of restful sleep every night
2) Eat good nutritious food for your body type in moderation
3) Avoid accidents
4) Take whatever vitamin/nutritional supplements you can't get from your foodIt would be nice if even 5% of Republicans believed it.
The reality is most people don't believe it, they really want someone to "magically" keep them healthy, thereby absolving them of the effort and responsibility to keep themselves healthy.
The result is the need for a lot of sickness care.
You are so right. Just the other day I saw this stupid cancer kid -- they're easy to spot what with the ridiculous scarves hiding their baldness and their puffy prednisone and chemo faces -- and I said, "Hey, stupid cancer kid, I guess you should have taken your vitamins. I hope your treatment isn't being paid for by taxpayers or has prevented an insurance CEO from buying his teenage daughter a second Mercedes in a different color that matches her favorite handbag. One day, stupid cancer kid, everything will be different and we will live in the Little House on the Prairie again and get plenty of sleep. And if someone gets a fever we just trade a chicken to the Doc. We will suck the milk of patriotism and Jesus' love from the ample American bosom of Sarah Palin. I hope you live to see it, stupid cancer kid."
Also, avoid accidents! Why didn't anyone think of that before? It's so obvious!
I always find it stange how people point out the patriot act about how bush is worse than obama, except ..., obama is still using those policies. If obama had come in and said, "Hold it, all that stuff we did before. Well it was wrong, and we won't do it anymore." I would understand the attitude, but he didn't.
I'm the first to say he should push for it to be repealed / be disappointed that he's still using the powers that it grants.
That being said:
1) Not giving back outsized government power is not ethically equivalent to seizing it in the first place, and
2) The Patriot Act and other assorted reaction-to-9/11 politics are still, by far, the biggest federal government power grab of my lifetime, and even were Obama wallowing in that power to the utmost (and he may be), it's still an excellent counterpoint to the ideas that Obama is responsible for taking more of your freedom or increasing the size of government more than any other president or whatever the talking point of the day is.
Frankly, we should demand more of our leaders than being the lesser of two evils, but the fact remains, he still is the lesser of several evils.
Not giving back outsized government power is not ethically equivalent to seizing it in the first place
Yes, it is. Each unethical act done under the permission of the PATRIOT act has exactly the same moral value. It is no more moral for Obama to use it than it was for Bush to.
The Patriot Act and other assorted reaction-to-9/11 politics are still, by far, the biggest federal government power grab of my lifetime,
I'm afraid not. You're seeing a bigger one right now.
Yes, it is. Each unethical act done under the permission of the PATRIOT act has exactly the same moral value. It is no more moral for Obama to use it than it was for Bush to.
Yes, but that entirely misses the point.
I'm afraid not. You're seeing a bigger one right now.
Make the case for that. Back it up with numbers if you can. The healthcare bill doesn't come anywhere close.
1) Not giving back outsized government power is not ethically equivalent to seizing it in the first place, and
Unless the original person believed it was actually necessary, and the second person believed that it wasn't actually necessary. The first person could be using the abilities as a "necessary evil", while the second person knows full well that it is not. In that case the second person would be less ethically to keep the powers. I'm not saying that Obama is that 2nd person described above, merely that we can't flat out say the 2nd person is always more ethical.
2) The Patriot Act and other assorted reaction-to-9/11 politics are still, by far, the biggest federal government power grab of my lifetime, and even were Obama wallowing in that power to the utmost (and he may be), it's still an excellent counterpoint to the ideas that Obama is responsible for taking more of your freedom or increasing the size of government more than any other president or whatever the talking point of the day is.
Well if you have lost N rights previously and then not only are still out N rights but you also lose C rights, then saying the person responsible for keeping N rights from you and also taking C rights away from you, so you have gone from being down N rights to being down N+C rights, is taking more of your freedom would be accurate.
Frankly, we should demand more of our leaders than being the lesser of two evils, but the fact remains, he still is the lesser of several evils.
And the greater of others.
Question for you, yellowdingo:
Did you call for an end to the criticism of Bush, who generated massively more (and much more vitriolic) criticism than Obama?
Citation needed.
People said a lot of crap about Bush, but I can't recall anyone ever saying he was a foreign sleeper agent secret Muslim actually intent on destroying America. Mostly, people just called him stupid or said he took his advice from evil people. Which is harsh criticism to be sure, but I don't recall a whole lot of picket signs wherein Bush had a Hitler mustache.
Well if you have lost N rights previously and then not only are still out N rights but you also lose C rights, then saying the person responsible for keeping N rights from you and also taking C rights away from you, so you have gone from being down N rights to being down N+C rights, is taking more of your freedom would be accurate.
Unless N > C.
|
|
People said a lot of crap about Bush, but I can't recall anyone ever saying he was a foreign sleeper agent secret Muslim actually intent on destroying America. Mostly, people just called him stupid or said he took his advice from evil people. Which is harsh criticism to be sure, but I don't recall a whole lot of picket signs wherein Bush had a Hitler mustache.
I'm trying to think if anyone that worked for MSNBC didn't wish a horrible death upon the man at some point or another. Maybe an intern or two.
Which is harsh criticism to be sure, but I don't recall a whole lot of picket signs wherein Bush had a Hitler mustache.
Look harder. It's not widely disputed that vitriolic, nasty criticism of the President was far worse under Bush than it is now. "Bush Hitler" and "Bush Chimp" were both much more widely used five years ago than "Obama Hitler" and "Obama Chimp" are today.
Unless N > C.
Well if you have lost N rights previously and then not only are still out N rights but you also lose C rights, then saying the person responsible for keeping N rights from you and also taking C rights away from you, so you have gone from being down N rights to being down N+C rights, is taking more of your freedom would be accurate.
Huh?
I think you mean "Unless N > N+C"
If N+C > N, then you now have less freedoms than you previous had.
I always find it stange how people point out the patriot act about how bush is worse than obama, except ..., obama is still using those policies. If obama had come in and said, "Hold it, all that stuff we did before. Well it was wrong, and we won't do it anymore." I would understand the attitude, but he didn't.
So for some the kool-aid flavor is Wild Barry Hawaiian Punch.
The President can't hand wave it off and dismiss it. Unfortunately, it's Congressional and then the Prez has to put his stamp of approval or veto on it. And we see how well Congress is playing in their sandbox this session. :S
So, if the next President in 2012 (or technically, Jan 2013) comes in happens to be GOP and does not do anything about the Patriot Act, does it make him (or her) as complicit as Obama for not acting to dismiss / overturn it? Just curious from your point of view.
|
|
It is hard to address this hypothetical cancer kid you have raised without knowing some specifics. Chemotherapy could work for some of them, but doctors have been known to use it even when there is no hope of it working.However, sickness care isn't expensive because of millions of children with cancer. The majority of the costs are due to such diseases as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer in adults. Much of it preventable with proper health care.
One does not need to live in the 19th century to get proper nutrition, plenty of rest and avoid accidents. It is possible in this day and age.
Look at it this way. At some point, the system will go bankrupt, Obama or no Obama, Palin or no Palin. At that time, you won't be able to get the sickness care promised you. So wouldn't you rather be healthy so you don't need it?
Hey, I agree with you. People who are sick got that way because they want to be sick, and all the ways to avoid being sick are free and easy.
Your analysis has been a revelation to me. I just cancelled all my insurance policies because I have decided that from now on I will just avoid accidents. You need to get the word out on this.
From here on out, people, we will be avoiding accidents. Spread the word. This is going to save us millions.
Avoid accidents, everybody.
Mr. Obama is the chief of the Executive Branch. The PATRIOT Act lets him do things; nothing in the PATRIOT Act forces him to do any of those things.
He could issue an Executive Order tomorrow which would effectively void the Act by instructing federal law enforcement to only do things they could do before the Act. He could unilaterally eviscerate any improper part of the Act tomorrow.
He's not doing that.
You sure? That would circumvent Congress. But I confess to be naive on the actual invoking of branch powers as to who can void what. Whatever the outcome, it'll only dig deeper trenches in the current lack of bi-partisan cooperation.
Of course, that's nothing new. :p
The President can't hand wave it off and dismiss it.
I think I already explained how he can.
If I pass a law that says "Urizen will not go to jail for bank robbery," that doesn't require you to go hold up your local Chase branch.Obama could stop using the unethical tactics permitted under the PATRIOT Act tomorrow with a single Executive Order, no Congressional input needed.
You sure? That would circumvent Congress.
What part of the PATRIOT Act actually MANDATES that federal law enforcement do anything more than share information?
I always find it stange how people point out the patriot act about how bush is worse than obama, except ..., obama is still using those policies. If obama had come in and said, "Hold it, all that stuff we did before. Well it was wrong, and we won't do it anymore." I would understand the attitude, but he didn't.
So for some the kool-aid flavor is Wild Barry Hawaiian Punch.
The President can't hand wave it off and dismiss it. Unfortunately, it's Congressional and then the Prez has to put his stamp of approval or veto on it. And we see how well Congress is playing in their sandbox this session. :S
So, if the next President in 2012 (or technically, Jan 2013) comes in happens to be GOP and does not do anything about the Patriot Act, does it make him (or her) as complicit as Obama for not acting to dismiss / overturn it? Just curious from your point of view.
Mind you, I'm not upset about the Patriot Act in the least, whether it is Bush, Obama, or whomever (except Pelosi maybe, she is crazy, IMO of course). But yes, I would definitely say that if another president (Rep or Dem) came in and didn't believe those powers were necessary but continued to use them, then they would be as "complicit", if not more so (the farther we get from the incidents that "birthed" those acts, the less justification for their continuation there is).