DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotSoNormalGuy
quote:
cloudboy
The base and the party apparatus care more about being in power than anything else. Getting Obama out is their dream, along with repealing Obamacare, cutting funding to NPR, and vetoing democratic initiatives.
The base and the party apparatus care more about being in power than anything else. Keeping Obmam in is their dream, along with preventing the repeal of Obamacare, continuing funding to NPR and funding democratic initiatives.
You forgot to add "and not even consider conservative initiatives."
quote:
quote:
Obama looked bad to me. It's as if he wanted the viewers to see Mitt Romney's policies as self-evidently poor as they are generally regarded by the reading, informed public. He did not effectively explain why he's a better candidate for President.
Agreed. He most definately did not explain why he's a better candidate for President.
I don't agree with you there. He showed the differences between himself and Obama, something McCain couldn't do much of (because he wasn't all that different). It was clear that the plans they have are dissimilar, and he explained why his plans are better. Thus, he did explain why he's the better candidate.
quote:
quote:
Next, about the role of government. This is so simple, and Obama fucked it up completely.
What all Americans want is good government. We also don't want the fox guarding the hen house. Bad government leads to IRAQ and the financial crisis. Corrupt government leads to the Nuclear mess we saw in Japan. Bad ineffective government lead to 9/11 and the Katrina response. Bad government contributes to creating the mortgage crisis and great recession. As far as regulation goes, we want effective regulation -- the kind of regulation that checks wall street abuses and helps prevent oil leaks in the gulf, and that insures we all breathe clean air and drink clean water. If you elect Romney, he will put the foxes in charge of the hen houses. Everything will be business friendly instead of American friendly. Regulators will be working for special interests, not American interests, not the public interest.
American's want more regulation? It's the banks fault that I borrowed 400K while making 40K? Seriously? These are talking points?
In some cases, yes, it was the banks fault. Not common, but there were cases where the banks were fraudulent in their "selling" of the mortgage to the borrower. For the most part, it took two to tango, leaving the borrower liable, too.
quote:
quote:
Next, government needs was to be more efficient and cost effective in delivering its services, and this is why the 15 member medical panel is so important: we want to deliver better, more cost effective care to Americans. Expecting individual Americans to enter the health care market by themselves seeking lower costs is insane, better that Americans ban together and collectively bargain for lower rates on health care services and prescriptions drugs as a group.
Are American's that incapable that they can't form bargaining units without the assistance of the Federal Government? Considering that my life and the lives of my family are the single most important things I have to protect, I consider what I currently spend on health insurance quite reasonable. I pay more for a car payment + car insurance. I pay more for my mortgage. I pay nearly as much for gasoline per month.
Kudos to you for your actions and priorities. They have paid off for you.
quote:
quote:
The private sector is not always better. Look at the private contractors in the Military who are paid 3-4 times more than our own soldiers. Look at the cost of health coverage for a medicare recipient as opposed to someone paying out of pocket.
Completely spun. Yes, they are paid more in salary. They cost less, however. That's why they're used. The cost of a soldier is not his pay - it's his training and upkeep. The only cost for a contractor is his hourly/daily/weekly/monthly rental rate. The cost for a soldier is (if memory serves) something along the line of a million dollars before he lifts a single useful finger.
Then, you add in Hazard Pay, and, and, and...
Taking a soldier out of his actual role over there to do the work of the contractors, and you'll have to increase the number of soldiers over there massively. We don't have the numbers to do that. We also don't have soldiers trained to do the work the contractors do, so we'd either be there that much longer, or we'd provide shitty infrastructure in return for the damage we've done.
quote:
quote:
Mr. Romney said he wants to grow the economy to cut our deficit, but cutting the US deficit has never occurred without raising taxes. He's telling America it can lose weight by eating ice cream. His plan if foolish and history says you can't believe what he's saying.
You can lose weight by eating ice cream. All you have to do is run on the treadmill for an hour a day instead of sitting on your indolent ass collecting welfare. You can also reduce the deficit and cut taxes if you either increase revenue by growing the tax base or cut spending, or both.
No need to bring those on welfare into this one.
quote:
Obama looked like he just rolled out of bed after a hard week and showed up unprepared and uninspired.
I guess hope and change wore him out, and he doesn't have another buzz-phrase.
Romney: "Don't believe the hype!"
quote:
Lastly, the US government should not be turning our park lands over to oil companies for drilling.
You're right. We should keep sending our dollars to Islamic countries that hate us and want to destroy us. Much better plan.
Careful now. The South American countries that we buy oil from and hate us might get upset you're leaving them out.
quote:
quote:
Obama might have also have mentioned the role of Citizen's United on the elections and how this will impact government, making it more corrupt. He might also have said the Mitt Romney would appoint judges on the Supreme Court who would roll the US back into the Guilded Age while repealing Roe v. Wade.
Don't even get me started on SC Judges. Obama got his pick. If either side picked well, there would always be 9-0 decisions, since it's not supposed to be about anything other than the constitution. The simple fact that there is ever disagreement proves that partisanship plays a role which means the Supreme Court is a joke anyway...
If we changed the rules as to how the Constitution was to be interpreted, or how the interpretations were to be based, then, yes, the SC would always have a 9-0 result. What would be really interesting to see, though, is how many R-appointed Justices aren't always lock-step with the Republican party, compared to how many D-appointed Justices that aren't lock-step with the Democrat party.
quote:
quote:
Obama also didn't say anything to help any Senators or Representatives win elections in their own state. Obama never asked Romney if he faced over 200 filibusters when he was the governor of Massachusetts.
He didn't. Most likely because none of his ideas were that bad. He also never faced a virtual filibuster from his own party like Obama has with every budget he has submitted.
That said, I hate both candidates. They both suck terribly.
Personal opinion, one candidate does suck less than the other...
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Grade the Debate - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread