Jump to content

President Obama


lockmat

Recommended Posts

First, I didnt read or listen to the speech so this is still coming from the "before the speech" mentality....There is a reason parents dont want their kids listening to the speech and that reason is that they do not trust Obama and do not know what he is going to say. If parents were afforded a bit more advance notice, and allowed to preview the speech, I believe the backlash would have been far more toned down. Believe it or not, most crazy right wing nuts, are actually pretty educated, and tend to be very involved in their childrens lives. But having heard him talk multiple times, lie through his teeth to get elected, and outwardly support socialism, it is not one bit strange to me that parents would not blindly trust this man not to take the opportunity to spew a bit of politics. Its my understanding that this did not take place, and I am happy to hear that, but I do not think its strange for people not to trust him to do the right thing. This president surrounds himself with racists, terrorists, and criminals....Parents should not have to blindly accept that he gets an open forum to their children just because he is the President. I respect the office of the President, but I do not respect the President himself.

Second and in response to Attica Flinches comment - the free market may not be perfect, but it is far better than the alternative. Socialism fails every single time. There is not one single socialist country in the world that has anywhere near the standard of living that we have. There is not a socialist country with better health care, there is not a socialist country with anything better than us. There may be things that are not "profitable" that are still worth while, but those things do not need to be funded by the government. Those things need to be funded by the individuals who actually care about those things. If you want to support people who do not work, and give them money to feed their kids, I applaud you for it, but its not the governments job. It should not be forced down the throats of every single person in America simply because you want it that way. Charities are much more efficient than the government, and charitable giving goes up when the economy is going well. The economy goes up when government gets out of the way, not into the way. I have disagreed fundamentally with almost every single thing that Obama has done since he got into office - and until he stop making more restrictions, raising taxes, and punishing business, I will continue to oppose him. I am just glad that we only have 3.5 years left of him - this man has ZERO chance of winning re-election and he knows it...that is why he is shoving everything down our throats as quickly as possible. Democrats are going to lose every election from now until he is out. He is more polarizing than Bush, and its because his policies and his beliefs are anti-American.

...And Americans are demanding the job security that allows them to post lengthy diatribes - without basis, without reference - all day, from their workplace, because we, as Americans, need allow foreign competition to kick our butts, because we choose to hire our children to do such things. It is increasingly important that we become critical non-contibutors to our country, talking about charitable options, without actually volunteering or contributing to them. It is increasingly important that we promote a 4x10 area at the local CVS committed to preventive healthcare, twice a year, to address the needs of 48 million Americans. It is increasingly important that we gripe about our neighbors, but fail to engage them in any meaningful way. Because that is what America is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 524
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Second and in response to Attica Flinches comment - the free market may not be perfect, but it is far better than the alternative. Socialism fails every single time. There is not one single socialist country in the world that has anywhere near the standard of living that we have. There is not a socialist country with better health care, there is not a socialist country with anything better than us. There may be things that are not "profitable" that are still worth while, but those things do not need to be funded by the government.

You seem to be of the opinion that there is only the "free market" or "socialism". There are a million shades of gray between the two. In fact, the US comprises one of those shades of gray. And, while you claim that socialism always fails, you ignore that much of the EU is socialist and is far from failing.

Oh, and I'll take a sports car from one of those socialist countries over a "free market" American car every time. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, so-called socialist countries like Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, France, and Austria all have lower poverty rates that the United States.

I'm not sure the 46 million Americans without healthcare or the millions who've lost their homes and life savings due to our healthcare system would agree.

I mostly agree with your rebuttal, but these are datapoints of convenience which do not relay the whole story.

RE: the so-called socialist countries, you should've cited Norway. It is the only country that can be said is a darker shade of socialist than the United States AND that has higher per capita income. Of course...its economy is Alaskan in scope, pretty small and very dependent on its natural resources. The other countries you mentioned are all obviously going to have lower poverty rates; that's the whole point of socialist policies. That does not mean that the whole of those countries are better off in aggregate.

RE: the folks without healthcare, people who have lost their homes and life savings due to our excellent (and indeed expensive) healthcare could still file for bankruptcy and get bailed out without living out many years of their natural lives (which they retained from the bankruptcy, in addition to a bunch of other personal property) as indentured servants. Seems like a bargain to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with your rebuttal, but these are datapoints of convenience which do not relay the whole story.

RE: the so-called socialist countries, you should've cited Norway. It is the only country that can be said is a darker shade of socialist than the United States AND that has higher per capita income. Of course...its economy is Alaskan in scope, pretty small and very dependent on its natural resources. The other countries you mentioned are all obviously going to have lower poverty rates; that's the whole point of socialist policies. That does not mean that the whole of those countries are better off in aggregate.

True, but there is the matter of what kind of disparity between rich and poor one finds acceptable. Maybe it's good to have unlimited earnings possibilities, as it is one factor in motivating the entrepreneurial spirit that drives this country. But at what point does it become immoral, or even uneconomical, to forget about the millions who still live in poverty? Which one is the greater success, the country with the massive disparity between rich and poor--but a very wealthy top, or the one where most people have good standard of living, but where a person has less of a chance at really making it big? I don't really know, but a few safety nets, like guaranteed healthcare, may at least prevent folks from falling into poverty in the first place.

I think it's interesting that at least some of the super-rich, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, were against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and are now major philanthropists. I guess a person only needs so much money before guilt sets in.

RE: the folks without healthcare, people who have lost their homes and life savings due to our excellent (and indeed expensive) healthcare could still file for bankruptcy and get bailed out without living out many years of their natural lives (which they retained from the bankruptcy, in addition to a bunch of other personal property) as indentured servants. Seems like a bargain to me.

We all pay for their bankruptcy indirectly, just as we pay for those uninsured ER visits through higher premiums and excessive hospital fees. It's hard to imagine that most of those who file for bankruptcy are pleased about it. I don't think it's as much of a quick-fix as you allude to, nor is living in a country with some socialist economic policies akin to indentured servitude. The people living in some of the "socialist" countries with whom I've met all seem satisfied. Their biggest complaints seem to be that some goods (i.e. - clothing) are much cheaper here than in their home countries. But they can't imagine the idea of losing their healthcare coverage because of a job change or a pre-existing condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but there is the matter of what kind of disparity between rich and poor one finds acceptable. Maybe it's good to have unlimited earnings possibilities, as it is one factor in motivating the entrepreneurial spirit that drives this country. But at what point does it become immoral, or even uneconomical, to forget about the millions who still live in poverty? Which one is the greater success, the country with the massive disparity between rich and poor--but a very wealthy top, or the one where most people have good standard of living, but where a person has less of a chance at really making it big? I don't really know, but a few safety nets, like guaranteed healthcare, may at least prevent folks from falling into poverty in the first place.

I think it's interesting that at least some of the super-rich, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, were against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and are now major philanthropists. I guess a person only needs so much money before guilt sets in.

If you feel bad for the poor, give them some money. This is the basis for my beliefs about federal funding to social services.

Charitible giving ought to be offset by a tax credit up to a certain amount. The charitible giving could be allocated according to the moral compass of each individual taxpayer. If you consider poverty to be the paramount problem affecting society, give to a charity that you see as doing an effective job at combating the problem, whether that entails operating a soup kitchen or providing affordable housing or providing for necessary surgeries. And if your neighbor thinks that the money could best be spent on schools (which is a better way to attack the root of the problem, IMO), then let them do that. Maybe I don't give a crap about the poor or about children and want a new amenity in my neighborhood park. It's all good.

This approach pretty much eliminates class warfare mentality. No congress elected in part by poor people ought to be authorized to tax the wealthy to their direct benefit. That's theft.

We all pay for their bankruptcy indirectly, just as we pay for those uninsured ER visits through higher premiums and excessive hospital fees. It's hard to imagine that most of those who file for bankruptcy are pleased about it. I don't think it's as much of a quick-fix as you allude to, nor is living in a country with some socialist economic policies akin to indentured servitude. The people living in some of the "socialist" countries with whom I've met all seem satisfied. Their biggest complaints seem to be that some goods (i.e. - clothing) are much cheaper here than in their home countries. But they can't imagine the idea of losing their healthcare coverage because of a job change or a pre-existing condition.

You just illustrated the essential problem. They're allocating more resources to healthcare than we are, meaning that they have to sacrifice resources that could otherwise be used for other purposes, whether to grow their economy or to enjoy a higher level of consumption. We face the same choice. If we make healthcare a priority, then we have to sacrifice investments into our economy or other consumption options.

My pointing out bankruptcy was to indicate that there's already a way for those afflicted with "crushing debts" to avoid indentured servitude or debtors' prison and bounce back as productive members of society...without losing their lives in the process. On the one hand, bankruptcy is an unpleasant enough experience to keep most people from using it willy nilly for non-critical health procedures, but on the other, it allows people the option of getting what they need to live their lives productively, even if they have to start from scratch. Yes, bankruptcy does feed back into society, but the threat of it acts as the rationing mechanism of last resort.

If you modify rationing mechanisms such that we have a greater aggregate amount of healthcare being performed, the burden on society increases. There is the argument about preventative healthcare offsetting higher costs later on, and I'm sure that that holds true for some health issues, but not always. I suspect that the savings from preventative medicine will likely not be sufficient to have a significant effect if such programs are implemented competently. In fact, prevention can be excessive and wasteful if efforts expended to prevent a disease among many people can be more costly than just treating the disease for the few that develop it. These aren't issues that you or I can competently debate, however, because there isn't a workable healthcare bill in congress yet that would provide specificity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing good about a country with a bunch of sick, unhealthy, unhappy, or almost dead folks. Preventative measures are essential but there are still millions upon millions of people that have stuff happen that no one can prevent. Insurance helps but only if you have it and only if it is effective. Millions do not have it for whatever reason, and millions more are underinsured or have meaningless insurance.

I have to give credit - I have pretty decent insurance. I also realize that if I was not on a group plan through my employer, I would not a.) be insurable and b.) afford the rates if I happened to qualify for a plan. So I am very grateful that I am still employed and that my employer subsidizes a considerable amount.

Oh, and COBRA, if I happened to be laid off - so I have no income, but I must pay my $400+ monthly premium (HMO) plus copays. That won't work. Oh, and I'll never be able to be self employed or work for a place that doesn't provide insurance. I've had to turn down jobs because of that in the past. While I have it pretty good it could flip in an instant. And I wouldn't make it very long.

So my interpretation and feeling from those that opine that access to health care is a privilege and not a humane right is that I am in their euthanasia pool. I don't think I could afford to live without insurance, so that would make me a burden to others (and just think of those poor folks with serious serious illnesses!!). What's the answer? To off everyone who is a medical liability?

Just remember - every time an insurance claim is denied, your insurance company's stock climbs a few points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my interpretation and feeling from those that opine that access to health care is a privilege and not a humane right is that I am in their euthanasia pool. I don't think I could afford to live without insurance, so that would make me a burden to others (and just think of those poor folks with serious serious illnesses!!). What's the answer? To off everyone who is a medical liability?

Not necessarily. Do the total annual costs of your medical expenses exceed your total potential income (inclusive of the value of your benefits package, were it to be paid to you in cash)? Do you see yourself making significantly more income in the future? I'll bet that there'd be a way to finance your survival, but I'll bet that it'd make for a pretty miserable existence.

I know that Obama got some undue flack over the "death panels" thing, but I don't mind the idea, honestly. If my 89-year-old grandmother got herself injured in such a way as she'd be recovering from a treatment for the remainder of her natural life and would never serve another productive purpose to society, then I think that the government ought to deny her treatment--although, obviously, if the family pays for it, then that's fine. ...well, as luck would have it, that's exactly the situation she's in, and Medicare will pay for a $60,000 surgery that will require years of government-paid therapy to heal from. That's wasteful, and we do need healthcare reform. I'm just not sure that that necessarily means that we need to be guaranteeing even more procedures (if that's what it calls for, which nobody is sure that it does or not because there isn't a bill).

As for denying treatment to someone younger, like yourself, who may never be sufficiently productive to pay for their own survival...well that triggers a debate over the morality of evolution, survival of the fittest, reproductive rights, and essentially whether the treatment of unhealthy people today is worth having increasingly unhealthy people in future generations that have to be treated. (We've talked about the prospect of 'Idiocracy' before, now just consider how that translates to in terms of health. Scary. Sadly, I don't think people want to have that debate; both sides of it would have blood on their hands. Nobody walks away feeling good about the outcome, whatever it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing good about a country with a bunch of sick, unhealthy, unhappy, or almost dead folks.

But is that really an accurate vignette of our nation? I haven't seen anyone dying a death from pestilence in atleast a week! rolleyes.gif

For someone with the capacity to articulate a positive message, Obama seems to be cultivating a mood of self-loathing pity and (IMO false) misery. As someone that loves this country, it's bounding on offensive. Is it really so bad here? America is a damn good place that provides amazing opportunities to lift oneself above the need for subsidized living. And we have the illegal immigrants to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you feel bad for the poor, give them some money. This is the basis for my beliefs about federal funding to social services.

Charitible giving ought to be offset by a tax credit up to a certain amount. The charitible giving could be allocated according to the moral compass of each individual taxpayer. If you consider poverty to be the paramount problem affecting society, give to a charity that you see as doing an effective job at combating the problem, whether that entails operating a soup kitchen or providing affordable housing or providing for necessary surgeries. And if your neighbor thinks that the money could best be spent on schools (which is a better way to attack the root of the problem, IMO), then let them do that. Maybe I don't give a crap about the poor or about children and want a new amenity in my neighborhood park. It's all good.

This approach pretty much eliminates class warfare mentality. No congress elected in part by poor people ought to be authorized to tax the wealthy to their direct benefit. That's theft.

Charitable donations are already tax deductible. Despite such incentives, charities have not even begun to solve large scale issue like poverty, homelessness or lack of healthcare. So while they certainly have their place, they aren't an end-all solution. In the case of poverty, only good economic policy combined with opportunity and a willingness and determination of the poor will bring them into the middle class. Pinning everything onto charities seems like a convenient way for some to waive any responsibility on the issue.

You just illustrated the essential problem. They're allocating more resources to healthcare than we are, meaning that they have to sacrifice resources that could otherwise be used for other purposes, whether to grow their economy or to enjoy a higher level of consumption. We face the same choice. If we make healthcare a priority, then we have to sacrifice investments into our economy or other consumption options.

I think you're correct. We have plenty of spending that could be redirected towards healthcare. But it's not as if those without healthcare don't already cost us money through lower productivity, unemployment, visits to the ER, etc. If those folks are able to stay healthy and productive, the economy would benefit. It's also a given that some government spending is wasteful, and the argument could be made that it's better to use that money to directly help people and save lives.

My pointing out bankruptcy was to indicate that there's already a way for those afflicted with "crushing debts" to avoid indentured servitude or debtors' prison and bounce back as productive members of society...without losing their lives in the process. On the one hand, bankruptcy is an unpleasant enough experience to keep most people from using it willy nilly for non-critical health procedures, but on the other, it allows people the option of getting what they need to live their lives productively, even if they have to start from scratch. Yes, bankruptcy does feed back into society, but the threat of it acts as the rationing mechanism of last resort.

If you modify rationing mechanisms such that we have a greater aggregate amount of healthcare being performed, the burden on society increases. There is the argument about preventative healthcare offsetting higher costs later on, and I'm sure that that holds true for some health issues, but not always. I suspect that the savings from preventative medicine will likely not be sufficient to have a significant effect if such programs are implemented competently. In fact, prevention can be excessive and wasteful if efforts expended to prevent a disease among many people can be more costly than just treating the disease for the few that develop it. These aren't issues that you or I can competently debate, however, because there isn't a workable healthcare bill in congress yet that would provide specificity.

I think preventative healthcare is just another tool. If someone has access to health insurance, he/she is more likely to get the regular physical or other relatively inexpensive checkup and avoid waiting until seriously ill (and thus costing their employer significant time away from work as well as more expensive medical care to treat the illness). But I agree too that some doctors are enamored with their expensive high-tech tools, and they should be discouraged from running expensive tests when unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is that really an accurate vignette of our nation? I haven't seen anyone dying a death from pestilence in atleast a week! rolleyes.gif

For someone with the capacity to articulate a positive message, Obama seems to be cultivating a mood of self-loathing pity and (IMO false) misery. As someone that loves this country, it's bounding on offensive. Is it really so bad here? America is a damn good place that provides amazing opportunities to lift oneself above the need for subsidized living. And we have the illegal immigrants to prove it.

Europe probably has worse immigration problems than most parts of the United States, just from different source regions, so that's probably not the best argument.

Still, I do agree with you that our concept of what constitutes povery or inhumane conditions lacks an appreciation for how the third world lives. If this were really a debate about what is humane and moral, we'd be talking about cutting back on our own consumption, investment, and government spending in order to allocate massive quantities of foreign aid to the third world. But in fact, this whole issue is about class warfare in a nationalistic context, obscured by a thin veil of poorly-articulated morality. It's really very base and ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For someone with the capacity to articulate a positive message, Obama seems to be cultivating a mood of self-loathing pity and (IMO false) misery. As someone that loves this country, it's bounding on offensive. Is it really so bad here? America is a damn good place that provides amazing opportunities to lift oneself above the need for subsidized living. And we have the illegal immigrants to prove it.

It's hard to put a positive spin on people who die because of our healthcare system. Fixing that broken system will make us an even greater country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to put a positive spin on people who die because of our healthcare system.

Excluding malpractice... no one dies because of our healthcare system. Age, heart disease, cancer, automotive accidents, and the like kills people. Not our healthcare "system". Our healthcare system causes none of those things, and ultimately prevents death from none of them. No amount of reform will change that, nor prevent a single death from occuring. Delay it... perhaps. But given that the majority of the medical care over a lifetime is received in the last 3-years, that record is far from perfect. We shall all die in the end. Not even Obama can deliver everlasting life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for denying treatment to someone younger, like yourself, who may never be sufficiently productive to pay for their own survival...well that triggers a debate over the morality of evolution, survival of the fittest, reproductive rights, and essentially whether the treatment of unhealthy people today is worth having increasingly unhealthy people in future generations that have to be treated. (We've talked about the prospect of 'Idiocracy' before, now just consider how that translates to in terms of health. Scary. Sadly, I don't think people want to have that debate; both sides of it would have blood on their hands. Nobody walks away feeling good about the outcome, whatever it is.

I could get the bare minimum I need to survive and make it if for some reason insurance disappeared. But, in order to get the medication, I have to get a prescription, and in order to get a prescription, I have to pay for an office visit. Oh, and because what I take is a biologic (thanks, FDA, for not supplying guidelines to drug manufacturers and caving in to the BIO lobbyists), patents will reign supreme and generics are not in the forseeable future.

But you're right, under natural circumstances I would be long dead (at the age of 10). And I can't blame my parents/family since there's no genetic history. Fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excluding malpractice... no one dies because of our healthcare system. Age, heart disease, cancer, automotive accidents, and the like kills people. Not our healthcare "system". Our healthcare system causes none of those things, and ultimately prevents death from none of them. No amount of reform will change that, nor prevent a single death from occuring. Delay it... perhaps. But given that the majority of the medical care over a lifetime is received in the last 3-years, that record is far from perfect. We shall all die in the end. Not even Obama can deliver everlasting life.

I think it's fair to say that people die because of our healthcare system, even when you exclude malpractice. An illness or injury may ultimately cause the actual death, but if the health issue was treatable, and the health insurance company drops coverage upon learning of the illness or injury, then that patient died in part because of the healthcare system that refused to save their life.

Also, I don't think most people view saving a life as simply delaying the inevitable, unless that person is indeed elderly and loosing their functions as part of normal aging. Even so, I don't think it's a health insurance company's role to determine whether someone is too old or unnecessary to deem worthy of saving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be of the opinion that there is only the "free market" or "socialism". There are a million shades of gray between the two. In fact, the US comprises one of those shades of gray.

Correct! My economics teacher* says that everyone's both a capitalist and a socialist (at least in office) and socialism ≠ Democrats.

I'd say he's right...

* he's a Libertarian, so he can openly bash either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is that really an accurate vignette of our nation? I haven't seen anyone dying a death from pestilence in atleast a week! rolleyes.gif

For someone with the capacity to articulate a positive message, Obama seems to be cultivating a mood of self-loathing pity and (IMO false) misery. As someone that loves this country, it's bounding on offensive. Is it really so bad here? America is a damn good place that provides amazing opportunities to lift oneself above the need for subsidized living. And we have the illegal immigrants to prove it.

It's not that it's so bad here but that politicians need a crisis, manufactured or otherwise, to move their pet projects forward. One of the weaknesses (or strengths, depending on how you look at it) of democracy is that it tends towards stasis. Obama has picked his crisis du jour in healthcare. Last year it was Bush and TARP. Next year it will be something else. There will always be a 'crisis' and we'll always be given dire predictions on the impending demise of the American way of life unless we do or don't do this, that or the other. It makes for good television, too (if you don't believe me just watch Glenn Beck sometime).

Unfortunately, the alternative is to have one person dictate what will be done and when. I'll take the perpetual series of crises over that any day. At least I can turn of the tv when I get tired of hearing about how bad things are here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I don't think most people view saving a life as simply delaying the inevitable, unless that person is indeed elderly and loosing their functions as part of normal aging. Even so, I don't think it's a health insurance company's role to determine whether someone is too old or unnecessary to deem worthy of saving.

It is inevitably a morbid discussion. It's unscientific... but as I look back on friends/family that have died prematurely:

6 - were involved in car vs. car accidents.

1 - was killed in a solo bike accident (with helmet).

2 - were killed in a car vs. bike accident.

1 - died in a aircraft crash.

2 - died of heartattacks. Both had regular physicals that did not detect any problems, one had an EKG for his race driving physical only 3-months prior.

1 - had cancer, but was treated to the gold standard.

0 - died because of lack care, or an insurance company limiting care.

To my mind... the biggest threat to one's longevity is likely commuting to work every day (by car or bike). If I could get a guarentee of no automotive accidents, but I never get to see a doctor again... I'd take that deal. To paint the current situation as if people are dying en masse because of lack of proper care doesn't match my observations.

Great, now I can't get that Jim Carrell Band song out of my head! tongue.gif

Correct! My economics teacher* says that everyone's both a capitalist and a socialist (at least in office) and socialism ≠ Democrats.

I don't know who to cite, but I've read: "In the 'American Way' profits are capitalized and losses are socialized."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know who to cite, but I've read: "In the 'American Way' profits are capitalized and losses are socialized."

I've heard that too, but I think it was "profits are privatized and costs are socialized" and it was in reference to the climate change debate, but the same principle applies here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard that too, but I think it was "profits are privatized and costs are socialized" and it was in reference to the climate change debate, but the same principle applies here too.

Ah. Thank you August. I still wish I knew whom to accredit it to. Afterall, in today's economy, credit is EVERYTHING!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard that too, but I think it was "profits are privatized and costs are socialized" and it was in reference to the climate change debate, but the same principle applies here too.

Not sure where it started, but it was co-opted for the bank bailout in the form that Gooch read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

Republicans are looking more and more like the pre-Civil War confederates every passing day. Hopefully they will cool their jets this fall, unless their gunning for CIVIL WAR II :ph34r:

Since the confederacy formed in February of 1861 and the Civil War started in April of 1861, the pre-Civil War confederacy was only 3 months long, give or take a few days. My recollection of that exact period in history is that the primary political issue driving the confederacy was succession from the Union. Other than Gov Good-Hair Perry, has anyone else in the Republican party talked about succession? And if so, are you really taking them seriously? Please enlighten us on how the Republicans are looking more and more like the people of a few Southern states during those 3 months and how Republican opposition to Democratic programs is somehow different than it has ever been and how that is going to lead us to another Civil War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the confederacy formed in February of 1861 and the Civil War started in April of 1861, the pre-Civil War confederacy was only 3 months long, give or take a few days. My recollection of that exact period in history is that the primary political issue driving the confederacy was succession from the Union. Other than Gov Good-Hair Perry, has anyone else in the Republican party talked about succession? And if so, are you really taking them seriously? Please enlighten us on how the Republicans are looking more and more like the people of a few Southern states during those 3 months and how Republican opposition to Democratic programs is somehow different than it has ever been and how that is going to lead us to another Civil War.

You mean secession, right? If you want to apply succession to the US, it is still three years away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

Republicans are looking more and more like the pre-Civil War confederates every passing day. Hopefully they will cool their jets this fall, unless their gunning for CIVIL WAR II :ph34r:

Alternatively, I could present an argument how Democrats are looking like more and more like Communists and how this would lead to a VIOLENT ЯEVOLUTION :ph34r:

...but I'm not, because that's just going to lead to trouble. I wouldn't deny that the parties are starting to get a bit radical, though... :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternatively, I could present an argument how Democrats are looking like more and more like Communists and how this would lead to a VIOLENT ЯEVOLUTION :ph34r:

...but I'm not, because that's just going to lead to trouble. I wouldn't deny that the parties are starting to get a bit radical, though... :unsure:

You know nothing about Communists if you think Democrats look like Communists. Rampant ignorance is the real problem these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know nothing about Communists if you think Democrats look like Communists. Rampant ignorance is the real problem these days.

That's kind of the point. I was making an exaggeration in response that Republicans are like pre-Civil War confederates. Rampant ignorance is the problem. Sorry for the confusion, folks. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's kind of the point. I was making an exaggeration in response that Republicans are like pre-Civil War confederates. Rampant ignorance is the problem. Sorry for the confusion, folks. ;)

Sorry I missed the joke. It was a little too close to what one actually hears these days.

You are correct, there is exaggeration and ignorance enough to go around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


All of the HAIF
None of the ads!
HAIF+
Just
$5!


×
×
  • Create New...