Obama and Bush not so far apart...
-
tjamz;242092 wrote:
Please point to the sections of the constitution where you think Obama is not following the preset rules.Bedtime..... but i may have to look tomorrow, it seems i missed the part where health care is a right to be provided
plus numerous other things......
-
Also, wasn't it the REPUBLICAN candidate that announced he was going to suspend his campaign to vote for/work on one of the most Socialist bills of all time?
And for Nick....I challenge YOU to not accept anyone who has qualified for an FHA loan to buy a home from you and certainly not to recommend that they look at FHA loans with their banker.
-
zbrown;242094 wrote:
Bedtime..... but i may have to look tomorrow, it seems i missed the part where health care is a right to be providedplus numerous other things......
Obama has NEVER said it was a right to be provided. He may have said that we have a responsibility to make healthcare more affordable to everyone...but so has McCain. I WILL TAKE THIS BACK BASED ON THE BIT OF THE DEBATE I SAW.....THOUGH I THINK THE CONTEXT IS SLIGHTLY SKEWED AND OBAMA HIMSELF IS TO BLAME FOR SKEWING THE CONTEXT
The constitution never said that motor vehicles should have to pass crash test ratings either...but they do. Why? Because it helps ensure the safety of the people of the united states.
Yes, that is an absurd argument....but you pointed out an absurd untruth, so I felt it only fair to counter with something equally as absurd.
-
zbrown;242097 wrote:
thank you...When did I say it wasn't socialistic? Never. When have I said it is the tax plan that I would PREFER to see long-term? Again, never.
I don't think that people should carry large credit card debt either as it is a bad fiscal move, however in the case of emergency, I think having the available credit ready and to use it is necessary. That is what I was getting at. I personally feel we are in a state of emergency in this country and the normal rules I play by need to be changed....
Similar to how many think the Patriot Act was necessary to remove some of our civil liberties/rights after we were attacked and the country was under crisis.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
tjamz;242098 wrote:
Obama has NEVER said it was a right to be provided. He may have said that we have a responsibility to make healthcare more affordable to everyone...but so has McCain.The constitution never said that motor vehicles should have to pass crash test ratings either...but they do. Why? Because it helps ensure the safety of the people of the united states.
Yes, that is an absurd argument....but you pointed out an absurd untruth, so I felt it only fair to counter with something equally as absurd.
Gosh..... maybe we should have a socialized food program, where the Gov. has to provide for ALL of our nutritional needs......after all who needs health care if you don't have food right??
That has to "help ensure the safety of the people of the United States"
Better have one for clothing and shelter too.........
LOL... atleast i will lay in bed with a smile on my face till i fall asleep thinking of how misleaded and overly dependant people have become....... and how sorry i feel for those people
-
tjamz;242098 wrote:
Obama has NEVER said it was a right to be provided. He may have said that we have a responsibility to make healthcare more affordable to everyone...but so has McCain.
.So apparently Chuck is ignorant enough to not even watch a debate...
Chuck spread a falsicy? No way...
-
tjamz;242098 wrote:
Obama has NEVER said it was a right to be provided. He may have said that we have a responsibility to make healthcare more affordable to everyone...but so has McCain.The constitution never said that motor vehicles should have to pass crash test ratings either...but they do. Why? Because it helps ensure the safety of the people of the united states.
Yes, that is an absurd argument....but you pointed out an absurd untruth, so I felt it only fair to counter with something equally as absurd.
WTF? -
zbrown;242102 wrote:
Gosh..... maybe we should have a socialized food program, where the Gov. has to provide for ALL of our nutritional needs......after all who needs health care if you don't have food right??That has to "help ensure the safety of the people of the United States"
Better have one for clothing and shelter too.........
LOL... atleast i will lay in bed with a smile on my face till i fall asleep thinking of how misleaded and overly dependant people have become....... and how sorry i feel for those people
you dont think this country is pretty socialist already?
weird..
you work in an industry where the govt supplements income to reduce risk or influence prices. they pretty much already provide for our nutrition because if they didnt step in and keep them from going broke half of the farmers wouldnt be farming anymore. anyone have crp land?
socialist shelter and clothing programs? already exist, bud.
i feel sorry for a lot of people too, mainly the ones that were immorally or unethically dismissed because their well being didnt fit into the profit margin.
-
torbs;242109 wrote:
So apparently Chuck is ignorant enough to not even watch a debate...Chuck spread a falsicy? No way...
No, Chuck didn't watch the debate. He was busy getting his home ready for sale.
Do I agree with everything the man says? No. Do things get said during debates that are not as thorough as their published health plans. As for what I saw in your clip....what I heard was this "If you have health insurance, you shouldn't have to fight for them to cover your ass if you get sick. You have health insurance to protect you in the event of a major crisis and if you have this coverage, you have the right to be protected under the policy."
Maybe that isn't exactly how it was worded, but I feel that was the intent.
-
I'll elaborate more later.
-
I still haven't heard anyone come up with some good logical argument for the fact that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS were the ones who pushed through policies allowing people with little to no income to recieve mortgages they'd never be able to afford. On top of the fact that Obama is the 3rd largest recipient of lobbying funds from fannymae and freddiemac...AND when McCain wanted to investigate them because he knew they were lieing about their profits, the DEMS, including Obama, said "NO NO nothing's wrong with them!"
Between the Dems, Acorn, and Fannie/Freddie, a large chunk of the recent $700+ Bil we just spent is their fault. Sure, lenders willing to sign off on them are largely at fault too, but they wouldn't have even been allowed to if the Dems hadn't been so pushy in getting their poor constituients into houses they couldn't afford.
Not to mention that gas prices spiked ~ $2/gal in the months after the DEMS took control of office. They were flirting in the high 1 range and then magically shot up to near $4/gal soon afterwards! Interesting correlation there...
-
StangerBanger96;242131 wrote:
I still haven't heard anyone come up with some good logical argument for the fact that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS were the ones who pushed through policies allowing people with little to no income to recieve mortgages they'd never be able to afford. On top of the fact that Obama is the 3rd largest recipient of lobbying funds from fannymae and freddiemac...AND when McCain wanted to investigate them because he knew they were lieing about their profits, the DEMS, including Obama, said "NO NO nothing's wrong with them!"Obama has been a senator for what? 4 years....his party has had political power for 2 years (majority house/senate)... MOST of these sub-prime mortgages came during the early 2000's when interest rates were incredibly low....back when the Republicans had FULL control of house/senate/whitehouse....and before Obama was in the senate. Nobody said "You HAVE to give loans to everyone, regardless of ability to pay", that was a market decision by the businesses themselves and not a mandate....if it were EVERY bank in America would be screwed right now and facing the same problems....but they aren't. Locally, the banks have been fiscally sound.
Are you saying you WANT more regulation? That's not very Republican of you....I mean...free market and stuff, right?
Between the Dems, Acorn, and Fannie/Freddie, a large chunk of the recent $700+ Bil we just spent is their fault. Sure, lenders willing to sign off on them are largely at fault too, but they wouldn't have even been allowed to if the Dems hadn't been so pushy in getting their poor constituients into houses they couldn't afford.
Fannie/Freddie...yes, the funneled a ton of money to Obama...that is something he'll have to live with and struggle through. No argument from me.
As for the dems...see above.
As for ACORN...here are some stats (from their website...so take that for what it is worth)
Maude Hurd, ACORN’s National President, issued the following statement in response to Senator McCain’s attack: "We appreciate that Senator McCain's effort to stir up the Republican base by attacking a community organization working to increase public participation in our democratic process. However, these attacks reflect an increasingly panicked candidate; unfortunately the Senator McCain we saw tonight is very different than the Senator McCain who stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN at a February 20, 2006 immigration reform event
It is clear for us to see that John McCain was for ACORN before he was against ACORN; he was for reform before he was against reform; and he was a maverick before he became erratic. What is really going here is that Senator McCain and his allies are part of a coordinated effort to engage in what appears to be an unprecedented effort to suppress voter turnout. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, and the McCain campaign has resorted to the worst type of deceptions in regards to ACORN."
The Facts:-
ACORN has helped 1.3 million citizens from all parties and all walks of life apply for voter registration.
-
<u>**In most states, ACORN is required by law to turn in every voter registration card - even in cases where the cards are not valid. **</u>
-
<u>* It is ACORN that has reported almost all of the issues regarding voter registration cards.**</u>*
-
** Invalid voter registration cards do NOT constitute voter fraud. <u>Even RNC General Counsel Sean Cairncross has recently acknowledged he is not aware of a single improper vote cast</u> as a result of bad cards submitted in the course of an organized voter registration effort. **
-
ACORN hired 13,000 field workers to register people to vote. In any endeavor of this size, some people will engaged in inappropriate conduct. ACORN has a zero tolerance policy and terminated any field workers caught engaging in questionable activity. At the end of the day, as ACORN is paying these people to register voters, it is ACORN that is defrauded.
So basically, Obama is being blamed for voter fraud because he felt it was necessary to get more people out to vote and stood behind the core principles of that organization...and some people at the field level decided to provide falsified documentation? Am I guilty of embezzelment because I used to work for Tyco and their CEO (Dennis Kozlowski) was found guilty of these crimes as well as tax evasion?
Not to mention that gas prices spiked ~ $2/gal in the months after the DEMS took control of office. They were flirting in the high 1 range and then magically shot up to near $4/gal soon afterwards! Interesting correlation there...
See quote below...then see my comments below it.
The Nov. 17 Lundberg Survey of about 5,000 gas stations across the country showed the average price of a gallon of self-serve regular gas was $2.23, a penny lower than the same week a year ago, publisher Trilby Lundberg told CNN.
Yes, the cost of gas did rise, as did the price of every commodity due to the weakening dollar and the fact that we were borrowing money to fund wars and other programs. When the dollar devalues, it means we can't buy as much of a product for a given amount of money as we were able to before. Now, which party is responsible for the HUGE deficit spending/borrowing and which one left the whitehouse 8 years ago w/ a projected surplus and balanced budget?
When I had my bachelor party on August 4, 2001 I paid $.97 for gas in Sykeston, ND. Yes....97 CENTS, not a typo (nationally gas was $1.27 at that time). So gas prices doubled from August 4, 2001 to around $2.50 back when the democrats won the midterms...at least according to this index:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/gas1.html
Now, here is what I will say...if you don't like Obama or his tax plan, that is fine. I'm not a huge fan of it either. If you feel that strongly, I suggest you all send your stimulus package checks back as well....all that was designed to do was stimulate the economy by putting money in the pockets of citizens who will spend it on businesses....but I'm guessing each and every one of us that got one, spent it and thought nothing of it. Hypocrites.
-
-
SmitEvo;242130 wrote:
Chuck is turning into a communist....I really can see how you went from liking Ron Paul to even agreeing with Obama. The antichrist must have you under his powers....I seem to recall a conversation at your house one night where, when I asked you who you voting for if Paul didn't get the nomination and you said............ "Probably Obama"
Again, I see this as a stimulus package w/ a plan to pay for it. It SHOULD be short term at best....and likely will be as tax code gets changed yearly.
I'd prefer to see flat taxes...how is this communist/socialist? That is the most fair way of paying taxes....period.
But, with Ron Pauls plan, he called for the end of Personal Income Tax (along with appropriate cuts in spending to match) but maintaining all of the existing corporate and other taxes. OMFG did Ron Paul just say he wants the rich corporations to fund this country so that the working class can keep their hard earned money in their pockets!?!?!?!?! What a communist!!! Oh....wait, that is kinda what Obama is proposing.
-
QFT Dave^^^
And Chuck, quit typing...you're digging yourself into a deeper hole...you aren't going to change any of our minds about Obama and apparently we aren't going to change yours either. You don't need people to admit you are right all the time...
P.S. I'm sorry that moving stuff for your house is more important than your country...every single day I take time to watch the news...whether I have 3 exams the next day or not. It's part of your duty as a citizen to be informed, and until you can take the time to watch a debate (have you ever heard of youtube?) anything you say holds no validity because it's simply an opinion based on partial truths or whole hearted lies.
-
DaveH;242140 wrote:
Personally I'd prefer that people DON'T vote if they don't know wtf they are voting for and have no clue on the issues. Acorn is just messing with the election process./playing devils advocate here
Getting people registered to vote who weren't presently doesn't mean that they don't have a clue on the issues necessarily. It MIGHT spur them to get more involved and work towards their agenda....however right/wrong that agenda may be.
Every year, thousands of voters are turned away at the polls nationwide because they haven't properly filled out their voter registration cards or didn't know that they had to fill out a voter registration card. Making sure that everyone who chooses to vote is able to is not a bad thing IMHO.
But in principle, I agree that people shouldn't vote if they are not up on the issues.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login