U.S. Politics VIII

[slayer420]

Dante Gabriel's example of Posey was better than my Trump example. I don't believe that Moore has ever threatened the U.S. public with candidacy, but I'm not going to peel grapes here.

I think it's fair to say that the GOP jumped on the Birther bandwagon moreso than the DNC forwarded 9/11 Truther conspiracies.

I agree. Wasn't saying they were not. Not that I am a birther or anything. It is a rule that you have to be born in the US, so asking you to prove that should not be such a big deal. More so if you parents were over seas close to when you were born it makes it more likely. Not a big deal to me though.

[slayer420]

"It was said" is the stupidest dogshit arguing method ever employed on the Internet. If you're trying to say that Democrats were as nasty to Bush as Republicans have been to Obama, you're going to need to come up with politicians who have said these things, because there are plenty of cases of Republican politicians questioning Obama's eligibility to be in office. That's where the equivalency comes on. Because saying that some small fringe of Democratic voters held conspiracy theories about Bush does not equal national Republican politicians making Birther claims about Obama.

Look, I can tell you're trying really hard, but you might just have to accept the fact that you do not possess the intellectual toolkit to be anything but a circus sideshow in politics threads.

If you don't like what I say block me. You are the one that always commits on what I say.

[DanteGabriel]

If you don't like what I say block me. You are the one that always commits on what I say.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to Terra Prime's debunking of your Heritage Foundation link from the previous thread. I'll happily leave you to your blissful ignorance as soon as I see that. I'm going to guess you aren't actually capable of responding, so I feel pretty safe making that pledge.

[slayer420]

I'm still waiting for you to respond to Terra Prime's debunking of your Heritage Foundation link from the previous thread. I'll happily leave you to your blissful ignorance as soon as I see that. I'm going to guess you aren't actually capable of responding, so I feel pretty safe making that pledge.

I responded several times on that, if my answer was not good enough for you tough shit. I didn't know you were the king of the board and that I had to answer to you.

[TrackerNeil]

There isn't one GOP member of Congress, that I can recall, who is currently on record as being a birther.

I made no such claim. I claimed, with justification, that Republican officeholders certainly were required to step lightly around birthers and their claims. The only Republican I recall flat-out dismissing birtherism was Mike Castle, and we know what happened to him. The others, as I said, expressed putative belief in Obama's citizenship, which is not quite the same thing.

[DanteGabriel]

I responded several times on that, if my answer was not good enough for you tough shit. I didn't know you were the king of the board and that I had to answer to you.

You never posted an answer, though.

You don't have to answer to me, but I told you what it would take to get me to stop badgering you, which you have asked me to do a few times. I guess I'll go on reacting as I see fit to your posts.

And no, I'm not king of the board, but others have told you there's an etiquette to posting here -- among them, be prepared to back up assertions with evidence and argue on that evidence. You haven't shown any kind of ability to do that, so don't be surprised that you're treated like the Brick Tamland of the politics threads.

[Atreides]

By 59% to 38%, more Americans continue to disapprove than approve of President Barack Obama's handling of the economy.... Of the 11 issues on which Americans rated his performance in the Feb. 2-5 Gallup poll, only his rating on the federal budget deficit came in lower, at 32%.

http://www.gallup.co...ign=syndication

FLOW, did you read your graph? For almost half a year now Obama's disapproval has been shrinking, and his approval increasing. Now, that could change, but that poll isn't as one sided as you make it out to be.

[Shryke]

There isn't one GOP member of Congress, that I can recall, who is currently on record as being a birther. And even within conservative ranks, I can tell you that Birthers are very often the subject of ridicule and abuse.

Of course, I'd again make the point that the extreme claims of some do not invalidate the legitimacy or reasonableness of opposition by others.

Right, there's just virtually no member of the GOP caucus willing to come out against Birtherism. Most refuse to take a firm "Of course he was born in the US" position.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, let's discuss your "reasonable" argument of the right.

Obama has spoken since his campaign how he'd like to reign in medical costs, particularly medicare

Of course he's talked about it. He just hasn't done it.

In fact, that was the entire basis of his argument for the ACA.

His argument for the ACA doesn't reign in Medicare costs. It says that future Congresses will reign in Medicare costs, because he didn't want to propose anything specific.

The GOP has alternately proposed scraping medicare and saving it, depending on the election cycle. But the budget proposla by Paul Ryan would replace the system with vouchers, which would no longer guarantee than seniors are fully covered (they may be, but that would be up to the insurers and the market). So the current GOP line about medicare is: scrap and replace it.

So, reforming medicare: progressive stance....So, saving the jobs of workers vital to the country: progressive stance.

So you're point is that he's taken "progressive" stances? Nobody is denying that, least of all me. But what does that have to do with the reasonableness of opposition to him? Unless, well, I suppose this may be it. Opposition to progressivism is per se unreasonable?

UhRegarding the Keystone Pipeline, please educate yourself before casting aspersions. The administration was forced to turn down (well, postpone is a better term) the project because of GOP tactics. If the repubs in congress had actually wanted the project, to go ahead, it could have, and probably will anyway.

http://www.politico....one-111493.html

So, Keystone Pipeline: stalled by republicans.

I'd say you must be joking, but it is apparent you're not. Are you aware that before the GOP did anything, he decided to postpone the decision until 2013? To anyone with an ounce of integrity, it was clear that he didn't want to make a decision that was unavoidably going to antagonize part of his base -- either environmentalists, or union members. So, in 2011, he punted the decision until 2013.

I can't read your mind, FLoW.

But you said that the arguments I'm making cannot be made with a straight face. The unavoidable implication from that is that I'm not making those arguments with a straight face.

But there is plenty of good-faith opposition to Obama.

Is it possible for someone to oppose the core components of that bill in good faith? Including rejecting the mandate, entitlement, etc.?

Um, in times of a weak economy, people give low marks to the administration in charge, regardless of who may or may not be at fault. You knows this. Your poll doesn't show you are part of the mainstream, it means that you are picking a good time to find fault with Obama's policies. Was George W Bush a great leader when he had soaring poll numbers after 9-11, or was he a horrible leader when those numbers dropped into the toilet? If Obama gets a second term and the economy returns to pre-W levels, then Obama's numbers will rise accordingly

Which has nothing to do with where "the middle" is. Were you with "the middle" of the electorate when they booted out Democrats and elected Republicans in 2010? Or were you somewhere to the left of that middle? C'mon, you can answer....

Well, I don't know many real conservatives that know what the word really means, but if you mean right-wing folks who vote GOP all their lives and can't stand democrats, hell, partner, I'm surrounded by them. I listen to their opinions all the time.

What percentage of the population do you think they are?

Yeah, the president who wanted conservatives in key positions in his cabonet.

Who were the conservatives in key positions in his cabinet?

[Ser Greguh]

Its not like anyone has said Bush had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. right? I think that is on par or worse that anything said about Obama.

Yes, people have said it (largely from the far right, ironically; truthers by and large threw their support behind Ron Paul, who seemed glad to receive it), and they have been treated like the fringe lunatics that they are, as opposed to the birthers that have enjoyed relatively mainstream status and relative political legitimacy as part of the right wing media bubble.

[Shryke]

There were a lot of Democrats, from the moment Bush was elected in 2000, who challenged the legality of his election and did not consider him the legitimate President. Hillary Clinton herself referred to Bush as "selected not elected" after his inauguration. Isn't that opposition right from the start?

Geez FLOW, it's almost like that election was highly contested and arbitrarily declared finish by the SCOTUS.

[Swordfish]

I hat to interrupt the dick swinging contest about whose side of the aisle has been more persecuted, but a couple interesting articles about education, given the presidents call for more spending:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/10/are-state-colleges-ripping-us-off

A new report by ACTA, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, notes research indicating nearly half of all college students make no learning gains in their first two years, and 36 percent show no significant intellectual growth even after four years. Yet GPAs have been trending upward. Colleges, says ACTA, are giving “more credit for less learning.”

http://www.city-journal.org/2011/cjc0714hm.html

Not only have diversity sinecures been protected from budget cuts, their numbers are actually growing. The University of California at San Diego, for example, is creating a new full-time “vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion.” This position would augment UC San Diego’s already massive diversity apparatus, which includes the Chancellor’s Diversity Office, the associate vice chancellor for faculty equity, the assistant vice chancellor for diversity, the faculty equity advisors, the graduate diversity coordinators, the staff diversity liaison, the undergraduate student diversity liaison, the graduate student diversity liaison, the chief diversity officer, the director of development for diversity initiatives, the Office of Academic Diversity and Equal Opportunity, the Committee on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Issues, the Committee on the Status of Women, the Campus Council on Climate, Culture and Inclusion, the Diversity Council, and the directors of the Cross-Cultural Center, the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center, and the Women’s Center.

It’s not surprising that the new vice chancellor’s mission is rather opaque, given its superfluity. According to outgoing UCSD chancellor Marye Anne Fox, the new VC for EDI “will be responsible for building on existing diversity plans to develop and implement a campus-wide strategy on equity, diversity and inclusion.” UCSD has been churning out such diversity strategies for years. The “campus-wide strategy on equity, diversity and inclusion” that the new hire will supposedly produce differs from its predecessors only in being self-referential: it will define the very scope of the VC’s duties and the number of underlings he will command. “The strategic plan,” says Fox, “will inform the final organizational structure for the office of the VC EDI, will propose metrics to gauge progress, and will identify potential additional areas of responsibility.”

What a boon for a taxpayer-funded bureaucrat, to be able to define his own portfolio and determine how many staff lines he will control!

[slayer420]

I'd say you must be joking, but it is apparent you're not. Are you aware that before the GOP did anything, he decided to postpone the decision until 2013? To anyone with an ounce of integrity, it was clear that he didn't want to make a decision that was unavoidably going to antagonize part of his base -- either environmentalists, or union members. So, in 2011, he punted the decision until 2013.

Glad he is able to make those "Tough decisions" that A leader is supost to make. I thought he was the leader of all the American people and weigh these issues on how it effects us all, Instead of the Unions and environmentalists.

[lokisnow]

I have a real problem with this argument. Drugs for erectile dysfunction and contraceptive pills simply are not analagous to one another.

Why do you hate God? ;) Erectile Dysfunction is God's method of birth control. It is natural! If God wanted men to spawn, he would bless them with erections. But if men are sinners and not meant to be fathers, God will place a blockage in their bodies.

Providing coverage for Viagra is against God's will and an enormous affront to Religious Liberty!

[Shryke]

You two lovebirds do realise he postponed the decision to have more environmental impact studies done because the proposed route goes directly over a HUGE aquifer that is essentially the major thing that allows farming in the central US right?

[TrackerNeil]

I'll repeat that Medicare spending has grown at a slower pace than it has in years since the ACA was signed. It was growing at about 9% over the last decade but has now slowed to about 4%.

That's what we're supposed to think, Trisk, to lull us into a sense of security while government starts running health care.

[slayer420]

You two lovebirds do realise he postponed the decision to have more environmental impact studies done because the proposed route goes directly over a HUGE aquifer that is essentially the major thing that allows farming in the central US right?

You realise there are alot of other pipelines cross that area right? Also they have been studying it for 4 years. It didnt take us that long to defeat Hitler. http://oilprice.com/...eystone-XL.html map of pipe lines.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So apparently Romneycare had the same provisions as Obamacare on contraceptives before the compromise/revision that was just made to the latter. I think this really helps give Santorum some momentum.

It doesn't have the same provisions. RomneyCare, as a a state program, did not override ERISA provisions permitting self-insurance by employers. Enables employers to avoid any mandate if they so chose. That's why there are Catholic employers in Mass. that don't offer contraception.

[Ser Greguh]

how about michel moore, I would say he was even to the "Donald" Also I never claimed any poitican said that, Just that it was said about him.

Michael Moore is not a truther, and has never to my knowledge publicly entertained the speculation that 9/11 was an inside job. He took a lot of flack for saying that bin Laden should be innocent until proven guilty, and alleged links between Bush and the bin Laden family that he took as motivations for what he called a "halfhearted" pursuit of bin Laden, asserting that Bush capitalized upon 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. It's fair to disagree with his methods or his conclusions (I certainly do a great deal), but saying that they constitute a "Big Lie" on the level of the truthers or birthers is patently ridiculous.

There's a reason why Moore is regarded, by sane, informed people, as being quite different from the idiots that made trash like Loose Change. While he's undeniably manipulative, populist, and rabble-rousing, he does have facts with which he backs up his assertions.

[Paladin of Ice]

It doesn't have the same provisions. RomneyCare, as a a state program, did not override ERISA provisions permitting self-insurance by employers. Enables employers to avoid any mandate if they so chose. That's why there are Catholic employers in Mass. that don't offer contraception.

If I may repost a section of my post from page 1:

An interim final rule was released alongside the women’s prevention guidelines to give religious organizations the choice of buying or sponsoring group health insurance that does not cover contraception if that is inconsistent with their tenets. This proposal is modeled on the most common exemption available in the 28 states that already require insurance companies to cover contraception. We invite the public to comment on this proposal as we work to strike the balance between providing access to proven prevention and respecting religious beliefs. In the event that this exemption is modified, it would remain effective on August 1, 2012.

Link.