|
Post by heeeeey on Aug 2, 2013 16:34:03 GMT
Let's go back to the beginning.
First, Nancy Pelosi said to pass the bill first, THEN find out what's in it.
The majority of Americans OPPOSED the bill.
The US SC ruled that it had to be classified as a NEW TAX to be constitutional. This after Obama promised up and down that he wouldn't create new taxes.
NOW, even Democrats are calling it a 'train wreck'. Doctors would not get paid for their services. Even Obama's union buddies want to be exempt from it.
So, this is my question:
How do you think Obama and the Democrats will manage to blame this debacle on Bush and the Republicans?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 2, 2013 17:06:40 GMT
What debacle? I have health care. Good complete health care, it includes glasses and teeth even! And before Obamacare I - and 60 million others - had no access to a doctor at all in years and years! So: what debacle? I LOVE Obamacare.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 2, 2013 17:12:27 GMT
Oh oops, forgive me, what i have is the original "Obamacare" which was started in Massachusetts by Republican Mitt Romney. It's called Mass Health and it's a beautiful thing. For decades I went with nothing but the emergency room for when untreated things got bad enough, and the pharmacy as the closest I had to a GP I could get advice from. I had NO insurance because the greedy rich people made it so expensive just to FLEECE everybody! SIXTY MILLION Americans had no insurance, for that reason.
I don't know how anyone could be against a national health system, except if they've been duped by the hyper rich who don't care about the good of the country or about people getting what they've worked and payed for.
The only thing wrong with Obamacare is it doesn't go far enough in that direction! Because of republican greed and so opposition, we had to make a hobbled version of 'national health' for ourselves which leaves all the profiteering in, thereby leaving it too expensive to afford, as health care has been for decades now since the rich people got away with raising its cost stratospherically beyond what legitimate market forces would dictate.
How can we blame the republicans, you ask? Well who do you think the rich people are?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 2, 2013 17:24:19 GMT
So, this is my question:
How do you think Obama and the Democrats will manage to blame this debacle on Bush and the Republicans?
That's an obnoxious question given that it's actually the republicans who are in the habit of blaming the other party for the B.S. they pull. For instance how both Reagan and Bush Junior CAUSED our crushing debt by cutting taxes we couldn't afford - and then they just wrote into the bill that the cut would be repealed after they leave office (and so be blameable on the Democrats who get in next). And this is a trick Republicans LAUGH about, while encouraging the parrot heads in life to overlook that 'little detail' when democrat bashing. It's also true that we'd have had national health in the 1970's if it hadn't been for REPUBLICANS opposing it. So I think your rather loaded question stems more from concern for what you'll get CAUGHT having done, not on what anyone will actually make up to say. __________________ Now here's my question to you (and dont take any of this personally, I think you asked a great question and I'm glad you signed up here. We have a couple members who'll be happy to get in on this discussion too (one of whom will support your view)) Anyway..my question to you is: how does it feel to be rich? Well you MUST be rich, if you support the republican party. Because anyone who makes less than a quarter million a year is part of who they prey on, not who they benefit. I cant understand why ANYONE would vote republican, after witnessing three and a half decades of them bankrupting us and voting against every decent attempt to make the country a little better. Why would anyone repeat their tricky lies and vote for them willingly? Why? The Republicans only care about one thing: robbing the poor to give to the rich. No joke, and no more words needed to describe them. THAT'S what they are for. So why would anyone who's not wealthy vote for them?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Aug 2, 2013 19:43:05 GMT
I expect to ruffle feathers here, but only for the sake of debate.
You do realize that the filthy richiest in the country are Democrats, right? John Kerry, the Kennedys and George Soros ring a bell?
As for Obamacare, who do you think is funding it? It's the middle class taxpayers who are already struggling. No I am NOT rich, but I do not want the corrupt, scandal-ridden IRS in charge of my health care.
If the system works well in your state, that's great, but I don't see any signs of it working that well nationally.
Hell, even the unions and the proponents of it want to be exempt from having to enroll in Obamacare. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 2, 2013 20:48:31 GMT
I expect to ruffle feathers here, but only for the sake of debate.
You do realize that the filthy richiest in the country are Democrats, right? John Kerry, the Kennedys and George Soros ring a bell?
As for Obamacare, who do you think is funding it? It's the middle class taxpayers who are already struggling. No I am NOT rich, but I do not want the corrupt, scandal-ridden IRS in charge of my health care.
If the system works well in your state, that's great, but I don't see any signs of it working that well nationally.
Hell, even the unions and the proponents of it want to be exempt from having to enroll in Obamacare. Why is that?
Well, I imagine it's because it amounts to them being forced to pay for insurance they can't afford. That's what I meant by "it didn't go far enough" (towards having outright national health, which would eliminate the gouging profiteering from the cost to people.) I'm not sure what you mean by "having the IRS in charge" of your health care. Those people wouldnt be in charge of anything but the collecting of taxes which is their job as usual. They have nothing to do with the spending of taxes, or setting the rates. And I would MUCH rather pay for health care out of taxes, than pay rich people a humungous additional charge for them to keep as profit. It always saddens me that people have been duped into not correctly identifying who is the villain in these matters. I mean think of it. You could pay a fraction of what you pay now, and just have no business in charge of it that we have to pay a ton of extra money to for no benefit at all (they dont even pay taxes out of it). OR you can pay obscenely much more than fair market value to some crummy robbers who've bilked the system so badly that 60 million people were priced out of having any health care at all, and they didnt care! Which is a better idea? Who is really the villain in this situation? You know those rich scum trick people into thinking of who would be handling things as "the government", which they want you to imagine as inept and incapable, when the truth is THAT WOULD BE US handling it ourselves, instead of paying a 2,000% mark up to have people with NO MORALS "handle it". Again, which seems more reasonable to do? And who is really the villain? Yep. The rich people who trick half the public into supporting them so they can rob us. Yes, the democrat politicians are rich folk too. You have to be to get elected. But I think you picked poor examples (like Kennedy, who couldnt be more liberal, an icon of those in favor of social programs)(He may have been rich, but he couldn't be bought.) On the other hand the republican politicians we have now are all bought. But, lest I bury the point-> The Democrats were never the party that would do big businesses bidding. It's always been the republicans who represent their interest. So it doesnt matter who is rich. It matters who has been busy exempting rich people from obeying laws and paying taxes. it matters who has been making it law that you have to pay them ("or else"). Republicans should NEVER be voted for, under any circumstances!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 2, 2013 23:21:06 GMT
I think it's very sad that people try to politicise healthcare issues.
For what it's worth there's NO significant difference between 'Obamacare' and 'Romneycare' except that one was introduced by a Democrat and the other by a Republican.
Of course the real problem is that the healthcare insurance companies are a bunch of criminal scum run by the Mafia whose only interest is in ripping people off.
Publicly funded healthcare is what most civilised nations have nowadays. It means you don't need to feed the greedy sharks of the insurance companies.
Now in general - which may surprise some people - it's certainly surprised a lot of my American friends - I am NOT in favour of government doing very much. The less the better on the whole.
But I DO support governments running the military, police, prisons and healthcare - all aspects of life where you just can't trust the private sector.
In almost every other aspect of life I think that the private sector can do it better.
A patient doesn't give a damn if they're being treated by 'socialized' medicine or 'capitalized' medicine..
All they want is the healthcare professionals to do their best to help them.
And the insurance companies are purely parasitic and contribute NOTHING to society.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 2, 2013 23:25:51 GMT
By the way, Hunny, from a purely historical point of view it's not actually true that the Republicans have always been the party of big business.
From the time of Lincoln, Grant, Harrison, McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Herbert Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford they were NOT the party of big business. Grant was the first to introduce 'positive discrimination' and 'affirmative action' programmes; Harrison began a tradition of trust-busting that McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft continued; Hoover laid the first timid foundations of the New Deal; Eisenhower began desegregating America; Nixon passed positive discrimination measures into law and Ford too was broadly on the liberal wing of the Republicans.
Meanwhile the Democats until FDR had been reactionary, racists and corrupt suckers-up to the big business lobby.
So let's give credit where it's due.
Some Republicans did good things; so did some Democrats.
Just as both of them have done bad things.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 2, 2013 23:43:54 GMT
During the Civil War, Lincoln was a Republican. The Democrats were mostly southerners, pro slavery, pro states rights as opposed to a strong national government.
So, in other words, the Democrats started off as the bad guys and I can't see that they've changed much at all. It's really hard to think of a good President who was a Democrat, other than Harry Truman, who dropped the A bomb on Japan. FDR did a good job of managing America's interests in WWII but his domestic policies were disreputable. After Truman, the Democrats have been a parade of idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 3, 2013 15:30:56 GMT
By the way, Hunny, from a purely historical point of view it's not actually true that the Republicans have always been the party of big business. From the time of Lincoln, Grant, Harrison, McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Herbert Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford they were NOT the party of big business. Grant was the first to introduce 'positive discrimination' and 'affirmative action' programmes; Harrison began a tradition of trust-busting that McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft continued; Hoover laid the first timid foundations of the New Deal; Eisenhower began desegregating America; Nixon passed positive discrimination measures into law and Ford too was broadly on the liberal wing of the Republicans. Meanwhile the Democats until FDR had been reactionary, racists and corrupt suckers-up to the big business lobby. So let's give credit where it's due. Some Republicans did good things; so did some Democrats. Just as both of them have done bad things. It's unrelated to be discussing the 19th century, or to go back far enough to where the major parties were entirely different than what they became. I'm only interested in the modern Republican Party that does favors for business, and the Democrat Party that at least have for decades wanted to do things for people. Yes, Nixon is not exactly a hero of the republicans who came after him. But it's inaccurate to represent that the parties roles were reversed in the period between the New Deal and Nixon. The New Deal is something the republicans of my lifetime (and I'm 50) HATE. It helped labor unions, regulated business, gave money to the people, enlarged the government's role, and started the biggest social program there is (Social Security). And these are the very things the republicans have been increasingly against, since then. These New Deal initiatives consolidated the Democrats, and as being interested in this set of things, and it made the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933 to 1969), with its base in liberal ideas. In fact it was in the time of the New Deal that the word "liberal" was used to describe those in favor of it, and "conservatives" to denote those opposed. Now to be honest, I don't have a lot of interest in what the parties precisely were and were up to prior to Ronald Reagan anyway. For the Reagan era is what started this new period we're in now, where the republicans became extreme, and were willing to bankrupt us just to bribe the voters with a tax cut we couldn't afford. (Both Reagan and Bush Jr. did that, while it was Clinton who started paying the debt DOWN when the democrats held the White House. And now we have Obama who was handed a mess so bad IT CANNOT BE FIXED (and anyone examining the situation objectively can't fault him for what was caused before he got in office). But more to what my point was originally: the Republicans bought power by bankrupting us and by monopolizing control of the media (much as they always squalk about a "liberal media", there hasn't BEEN a liberal media in a long time now. It's owned by just four CORPORATIONS). They then used the power they'd acquired to start systematically exempting themselves from obeying laws and paying taxes. They took us into Iraq, where SO many people were killed and displaced by us - and all just to try and finish having control of the whole world and to make money for themselves by giving themselves the contract money. And they sold our jobs. They destroyed the economy and its base. And they held the minimum wage down so long that working class people who can actually find a job now get payed so little that they FOR REAL cannot live indoors (cant afford even a room!). And so we now have a generation of kids who are 30 but still cant leave mom and dad's house. They are among the MILLIONS who are considered homeless here. The American Dream, thus, has been ended by these people. We're in a mess without expectation of recovery. The Republicans have flatly refused to pay even a small portion of their fair share of taxes, to help. "Screw America" is the message there. And we no longer have a free market economy, we have a monopoly economy which works exactly like a communist economy -> products are made of poor and worsening quality now, there's no where else to go, and gouging and misrepresentation has been made legal. The maximum a bank could charge for a loan was 8% in the 70's; anything higher than that was considered usery. Under the Republicans, 'deregulation' occurred (read: decriminalizing of corporate crimes)and so the rate is now 30% I also hold the republicans responsible for the fact that we are LESS SAFE, and that I have to take off my belt and shoes to go into the post office, and be on camera EVERYWHERE - for they supported Patriot Act I and II, and didnt repeal them, and they were the party in charge when we went into Iraq. And America is a very sucky place now, without hope. And let's not forget at all the cost in human suffering of their driving down wages and selling all the working class's jobs. Millions of people who would have had a normal life, did not. Millions are now homeless. I personally know that that is like. It is degrading and some decide suicide would be a better option than living under a bridge (and they ALL think about it). But what does a rich man care if he causes that to happen to so many? The Republicans have also wreaked a vast human toll by being the ones who would not let Ted Kennedy propose and pass a National Health system for us, as he tried to do. The Republicans are the ones who HELP the insurance companies rob us all so badly that it got to where 60 million Americans just didnt have any health care at all. And they killed babies this way, because the infant mortality rate went up when the corporations greedily stopped providing health insurance as a standard part of an employees pay package. And you may tell yourself I am just blaming everything on one party, but I actually lived through all this, witnessed it, andknow what I'm talking about. And ANY thoughts of "oh the democrats do faviors for corporations too" is MOOT, because since Clinton, THERE HAVE BEEN NO DEMOCRATS - They are ALL republicans now. Please get that straight. There are no longer any Democrats. Those in that party do exactly what the republicans do now, because the republicans gained control in the 90's via Rush Limbaugh, and that's what it caused. So please dont tell me "they both do it". There is no "both". There's just the corporations now. And they have the morals of a rabid piranha. I dont believe in God or evil. But if there was anything that could be called "evil", I think it's these bastards. I also hold a great anger and crushing disappointment that the people of the country were stupid enough to actually VOTE and PARROT for these people. - for their lameness of mind is the real cause of these things happening. They allowed it. They voted it in, and back in. I've tried to point out several times that the wont to look at politics as if "they're all the same" (so it doesnt matter which side you vote for) has been tragically wrong - at least in the case of America. And I blame the people here for going along with the delusion that it is "which man" that you're picking in an election. It is not. it is which party. And America has let an evil party get in and do what it wanted. And now it is entrenched, and the country is sh*t. Anyway, since the mid 90's, there is only one party now, so it no longer matters who you vote for or if you vote at all, and anyone who gave a rat's ass about their country would have supported the Occupy movement, instead of stupidly killing it by PARROTING what the corporations scripted as "news" about it. For that WAS the people standing up for themselves, but the corporations they were standing up to tricked you all into helping to defame your own movement away. Nice going America. Thanks. Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Aug 3, 2013 18:59:12 GMT
I expect to ruffle feathers here, but only for the sake of debate.
You do realize that the filthy richiest in the country are Democrats, right? John Kerry, the Kennedys and George Soros ring a bell?
As for Obamacare, who do you think is funding it? It's the middle class taxpayers who are already struggling. No I am NOT rich, but I do not want the corrupt, scandal-ridden IRS in charge of my health care.
If the system works well in your state, that's great, but I don't see any signs of it working that well nationally.
Hell, even the unions and the proponents of it want to be exempt from having to enroll in Obamacare. Why is that?
Well, I imagine it's because it amounts to them being forced to pay for insurance they can't afford. That's what I meant by "it didn't go far enough" (towards having outright national health, which would eliminate the gouging profiteering from the cost to people.) I'm not sure what you mean by "having the IRS in charge" of your health care. Those people wouldnt be in charge of anything but the collecting of taxes which is their job as usual. They have nothing to do with the spending of taxes, or setting the rates. And I would MUCH rather pay for health care out of taxes, than pay rich people a humungous additional charge for them to keep as profit. It always saddens me that people have been duped into not correctly identifying who is the villain in these matters. I mean think of it. You could pay a fraction of what you pay now, and just have no business in charge of it that we have to pay a ton of extra money to for no benefit at all (they dont even pay taxes out of it). OR you can pay obscenely much more than fair market value to some crummy robbers who've bilked the system so badly that 60 million people were priced out of having any health care at all, and they didnt care! Which is a better idea? Who is really the villain in this situation? You know those rich scum trick people into thinking of who would be handling things as "the government", which they want you to imagine as inept and incapable, when the truth is THAT WOULD BE US handling it ourselves, instead of paying a 2,000% mark up to have people with NO MORALS "handle it". Again, which seems more reasonable to do? And who is really the villain? Yep. The rich people who trick half the public into supporting them so they can rob us. Yes, the democrat politicians are rich folk too. You have to be to get elected. But I think you picked poor examples (like Kennedy, who couldnt be more liberal, an icon of those in favor of social programs)(He may have been rich, but he couldn't be bought.) On the other hand the republican politicians we have now are all bought. But, lest I bury the point-> The Democrats were never the party that would do big businesses bidding. It's always been the republicans who represent their interest. So it doesnt matter who is rich. It matters who has been busy exempting rich people from obeying laws and paying taxes. it matters who has been making it law that you have to pay them ("or else"). Republicans should NEVER be voted for, under any circumstances! So you are in favor of a socialist dictatorship where the government controls everything including the people?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 4, 2013 15:52:20 GMT
So you are in favor of a socialist dictatorship where the government controls everything including the people? Well, that's just silly. Is that the wild hyperbole they tell you guys to imagine the other side is about? I'm for people getting something for the taxes they pay -rather than let the rich people just steal the money. I'm for being able to proudly say 'I'm American', because we do decent things -rather than let the corporate owner's shills - the republicans - drive everyone down into misery, robbing the place into an inescapable hole. Now what's wrong with that? WHY would you support people, who make millions, sometimes billions per year, bribing the congress to use law to keep the wages so low people who work full time cant live indoors? Why would you support THAT? And WHY would you support a party that says that businesses should pay no taxes at all, even if it means taking the only 5 dollars a poor person has and that we'll go off the cliff? Why would you support that? These people sold all the jobs and plundered our economy so bad it's not expected to recover - and here you are repeating their propaganda for them. Why? Because you listen to mean-spirited lying right wing radio hosts? ..or you watch FOX, imagining that it's actually journalism? Now this I agree with - so dont take anything I say personally. And there's plenty of subjects other than politics where I'm sure we wouldnt disagree on. So it's all good: I expect to ruffle feathers here, but only for the sake of debate.
But yea, I think you've let propaganda become what you believe is how things are. And you'd do yourself a tremendous favor by not watching FOX, where propaganda originates. They DONT deal in facts, they deal in lies: right wing propaganda! And their hate-mongering panel shows are ANYTHING BUT objective journalism. CSPAN and PBS would be better choices as news sources. Any of the other 'news' networks in the US unfortunately (like CNN) can no longer be trusted either. Because, much as the righties love to cry about the great unfairness of the "liberal press", there hasnt BEEN a liberal press in decades now. (But of course they have to have an imagined enemy still, to enlist supporters - so they still harp about one *frown*). No, the truth is all of the media - print, radio, TV, internet - even billboards - are all owned by just four corporations now. Yes, CORPORATIONS - the republicans bosses. They bought all the media up and now they script it and black out dissent, to trick people into supporting them. And the real shame of this is they're managing to trick their victims into parroting their lies for them, so they can victimize them. It's messed up, it's evil even, but it's true. -> If you make less than a quarter million a year personally, then you are who they ROB, not who they do favors for. And it's all about pumping out deceit to have people repeat it. Hell, the republicans even got rid of the truth-in-advertising laws, and also the 'equal time' law that said if a station airs opinion, they MUST provide a time slot for opposing opinion. We MADE that law so that people couldnt just put propaganda on the air unopposed, uncorrected. Well. Guess who WANTED to be able to put out propaganda without interference? And you can look all this stuff up. It's public record. So yea, I'm saying you've been tricked into repeating fantasy that a malicious political party puts out to trick their way into being supported. I'm saying their SOLE interest was to get control of the government so they could exempt themselves from law and paying taxes. And they've done it. And explaining this is all kind of moot now - because they've succeeded in wrecking the place from plundering it so badly. So it really doesnt matter who you vote for now. We've already been fleeced. But it DOES matter - it should - that people aren't just tricked into repeating propaganda for the folks who did this. Because you should be angry, like I am. AT THEM. The damage and the human suffering they've caused is vast. They should be taken out of their offices at gunpoint and hanged. Republicans AND Democrats (they're ALL "republicans" since Clinton the centrist and Rush Limbaugh's malice in the mid 90's)
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Aug 4, 2013 17:02:51 GMT
Well, you said no Republican should ever be elected. That smacks of dictatorship.
Reagan didn't spend 8 years bitching and moaning about the mess the previous POTUS left, but simply went about fixing it.
CSPAN and PBS are equally as biased toward the left.
I've watched them all, including that horrid MSNBC and that shameless covert racist, Chris Matthews who thinks Obama must be a god because he's never heard a black man speak so well. But I digress.
I've seen them all, and Fox News leaves all the others in the dust in the ratings and people watch it (including Democrats) because it's the ONLY channel that doesn't kowtow to Obama, and actually holds him accountable as the POTUS.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 4, 2013 18:31:53 GMT
Well, you said no Republican should ever be elected. That smacks of dictatorship. No, we dont need to get rid of having parties, we need to get rid of your party - replace it with one that's not a bunch of malicious liars who only want to rob us. You know...these things you say about "socialism" and "dictatorship" etc - look up the word hyperbole. That's what you're saying. The truth is the nonsense about 'socialism' and what the Democrat party wants is twisted complete fabrication. And it's your leaders preying on a common ignorance among people of basic economics, to get them to parrot nonsense, imagining it's a good slam of the opposition. I would actually be angry if someone tricked ME that way. Socialism is actually a GOOD, decent, constructive, moral thing. ALL countries have a MIX of socialism and capitalism. The nicer countries -the ones with better living conditions, no homelessness, lower infant mortality rate etc - have a little more socialism than the US does, and that's why it's a little better there. But you see the US likes to take the people's money and buy them NOTHING with it, and just spend it all on war and police. And that's a description of a country trying to play empire. But your party's followers have been conditioned to imagine "socialism" is heinous and a threat and every kind of extreme implication. You most likely even believe Social security is a "flawed system", rather than know it's actually insurance we all BUY for ourselves, but the system is going broke because politicians robbed the fund, and instead of paying the money back they decided to trick people into thinking it's a bad thing. It's not. And we'd be not just immoral but failing our own standards of human rights abuse if we were to get rid of it. Well, I don't imagine I'll make a dent in these things though. But telling twisted lies to people and having them repeat them ought to be against the law. Reagan didn't spend 8 years bitching and moaning about the mess the previous POTUS left, but simply went about fixing it.Ronald Reagan BRIBED people to vote for him by giving us all a "tax cut" that we couldn't afford; our budget couldnt sustain it. He then plunged us into terrible spiraling debt as the result. Another rsult was the 80's seemed a boom time to people who didnt understand the serious damage we were doing to ourselves by letting someone bribe us with terrible debt and create an artificial boom with even more debt. Still another result was Bush Sr. HAD TO raise taxes (the biggest increase in history at that point) after having said "read my lips, no new taxes". So out of office he went. It was not the only time the republicans pulled this sh*t. Bush Jr ALSO gave us an unaffordable tax cut, to bribe us into voting for him, and he just wrote into the law that the cut would be repealed after he left office (so the democrats would get blamed for it). I'm sure they had a good laugh about it...at our expense. This is why I refer to the "Fiscal Cliff" as the "Bush Republicans Cliff" - because that's a more truthful thing to call it (hey, people were trying to blame Obama, wtf, he didnt do it, he just inherited the terrible results created by Republican rule). Other things Reagan did, that you guys for some reason think is heroic, is he created less jobs than a boom is supposed to create - and they were all minimum wage jobs. He cut the minimum wage. He actually proposed creating a SUB-minimum wage of $1.85 an hour. He also tried to have ketchup legally declared a vegetable, so he could stop buying real tomatoes to put in kids lunches in school (look it up, it happened). I didnt hold it too much against him, because he was kind of senile and living in the imaginary and telli9ng stories while the rest of his Administration were the ones actually running things (good book to read: David Stockman's 'The Triumph of Politics' (Stockman was Reagan's budget adviser. He's the one who made the math error that caused us to build so many more bombs than we intended to). Anyway, good book - inside story - doesnt matter which side of the aisle you're on. In general, based on what actually happened in the 80's, not the fascistic mythology, I found it incredulous when he died and there were republicans saying his face should be added to Mt Rushmore! Oh and your point, "he didnt complain for 8 years". -> Of course he did. He was desperately trying to get budget cuts from the democrats and they wouldn't give them I've seen them all, and Fox News leaves all the others in the dust in the ratings and people watch it (including Democrats) because it's the ONLY channel that doesn't kowtow to Obama, and actually holds him accountable as the POTUS.A news network is supposed to be about reporting news, objectively. That's the I'm going to say 'sacred' duty of the press - the thing it exists for and is defined as. Objective news reporting. Journalism. FOX just doesn't do that. It pumps out the OPINION of the political right all day. A news network shouldn't have political opinion. It should just objectively report the news. Otherwise what you're watching will just amount to a lot of subjectivity, bias, spin, indoctrination.... in other words some organization's brainwashing. CSPAN and PBS are equally as biased toward the left.Actually, what the Republicans started calling the "liberal press" wasn't a politically slanted presentation of news at all - it was just the news WITHOUT political slant or agenda. You see, the republicans got mad at PBS because it refused to air their slanted objectivity as part of the news. And this happened 30 years ago, and the reps have been belly-aching about it all this time. Well, ya know what, they had nothing to belly ache about. They tried to demand PBS air POLITICAL SLANT as if it's fact, so of course PBS said no, because it isnt about brainwashing people or painting imagined realities to indoctrinate people into - it's just about news and factuality. Documentaries. So I dont see they ever had any right to complain. And you know what, those republicans of the time knew this too. But FOX isnt about to teach you the history behind the slogans your party uses - because the history of them would show they're all manufactured nonsense designed to oppose and defame another by any dirty means. A good example of this would be if you researched why the party is (oh so allegedly) "against big government". You'd find the origins of that quite dubious. I do hope this is being received in the spirit it's been hard worked on. Even if you "disagree", it should be obvious I believe all this and feel I was there living through it and witnessing it. The truth is important. The truth is if republicans were a good thing, I'd have joined them in the early 90's when I was in college and becoming politically aware, studying what the two major parties were REALLY about. (I didnt want just some show host to tell me what to think. I wanted to know the reality. So I watched endless amounts of CSPAN - which by the way is not a news network, and not a liberal anything...all CSPAN does (it's government funded) is it goes to political events and points a camera, and they just let you attend, without telling you what to think. I HIGHLY recommend it. Also you can get to see your Congress and Senate at work. You might even begin to notice which way the Republicans always tend to vote *ahem* but lest i politicize the recommend, no it's good unbiased stuff. No spin, no announcer at all, you just get to attend events. (They have a really good book interview they do on their too once a week. I used to love that. And then of course they do have call in shows on weekend mornings -THAT'S when you'll hear opinions (from callers on both sides).
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Aug 4, 2013 19:06:05 GMT
I don't believe I ever said here what my party is, but the fact is I'm not happy with EITHER party, and I think they BOTH lie, cheat, and are corrupt.
I would like to see a party that rises up and replaces BOTH of them.
I'm glad 'Romneycare' is working for you, and it would've been the best choice to elect the one who actually would have known how to implement and run it, instead of Obama who obviously has no clue.
I don't know about you, but I do NOT trust the IRS to run it.
The one who swore up and down that he would not cost the taxpayers' any more money instituted this new TAX (Obamacare), cost billions to 'save' the now bankrupt Detroit, and flushed billions down the crapper for Solyndra. I am spending more at the grocery store of less food, and I don't see ANY improvements whatsoever for the middle class.
The economy speaks for itself, and it is HIS economy. Even HE can't blame Bush anymore.
And weren't the Democrats in control of congress for FORTY YEARS?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 4, 2013 19:42:07 GMT
I don't believe I ever said here what my party is, but the fact is I'm not happy with EITHER party, and I think they BOTH lie, cheat, and are corrupt. I would like to see a party that rises up and replaces BOTH of them. I'm glad 'Romneycare' is working for you, and it would've been the best choice to elect the one who actually would have known how to implement and run it, instead of Obama who obviously has no clue. I don't know about you, but I do NOT trust the IRS to run it. The one who swore up and down that he would not cost the taxpayers' any more money instituted this new TAX (Obamacare), cost billions to 'save' the now bankrupt Detroit, and flushed billions down the crapper for Solyndra. I am spending more at the grocery store of less food, and I don't see ANY improvements whatsoever for the middle class. The economy speaks for itself, and it is HIS economy. Even HE can't blame Bush anymore. And weren't the Democrats in control of congress for FORTY YEARS? They were, and we used to get things done then, but then the republicans started getting an occasional majority of the House or Senate and that's when "gridlock" started. And yes, we probably should have given Romney a chance, but while I'm sure he'd have done some good, I'm also sure he'd have signed through more of the same shenanigans the republicans always want (tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, cutting of social services...). I was in no rush to bail on a president we'd decided to give a shot to when he'd only had half his time. And if in the end if he's done as badly as you say, you'll have a republican president next time anyway. I seriously doubt he'll be able to do any better with the economy though. As far I know there just isn't anything there to create a recovery with. So the republicans may get back in and get scorned even worse than Obama, because things could get worse. There's all kinds of ugly possibilities: inflation, devaluation, austerity... The whole world is in trouble, and I cant see America getting out of it when there are no jobs for the working class to pay taxes from, and the rich refuse to pay even a small portion of their fair share. So we'll just continue to have insufficient revenue, and if another economic shock comes, how will we be able to weather it? And how do you have a recovery when the prevailing wage, for those who can find work, is 8 buck an hour? No one is creating new jobs. Naw, I just dont see the basis for recovery. And i worry what will happen next... We could end up with nationwide rioting and that kind of thing. I hope I'm wrong! But i dont hear anyone saying anything more hopeful *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 5, 2013 16:35:12 GMT
I think sometimes we all get carried away with something we feel passionate about. I know I've been guilty of doing that but I honestly think that the basic problem is that no party in a democracy will have the guts to take the radical measures that need to be taken because if they did they'd be voted out next time.
Even in a democracy I think periods where one party tends to dominate are unhealthy. I think an alternation is good and I think the main problem is (speaking as a non-American) that both main parties are really such broad coalitions of every strand of opinion that it's impossible to agree on any meaningful policies. Basically the Democrats and Republicans ought to split into about three separate parties each which would at least give the electorate some kind of genuine choice rather than some cobbled-together fudge that pleases nobody.
But the provision of a publicly funded healthcare service is one of the few functions I do believe are better done by a government and my objection to Obamacare/Romneycare (they're almost identical provisions) is that it doesn't go far enough and allows the criminal healthcare insurance companies to go on exploiting the people.
|
|