Bush so pathetic that even his own party dumped on him

EBSB52 · Post by **EBSB52** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:04 am

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCr ... SN15294660

U.S. Congress overrides Bush's Medicare veto
Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:42pm EDT
(Adds Senate vote, legislation becomes law)

By Donna Smith and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, July 15 (Reuters) - In what likely is the last big showdown between President George W. Bush and congressional Democrats over the popular Medicare health care program, the U.S. Congress on Tuesday voted to override his veto of a bill to keep doctors' payments from being slashed.

By enacting the measure over Bush's objections, Congress rescinded an 11 percent reduction in government payments to doctors treating elderly Medicare patients.

Just hours after Bush vetoed the legislation, the Senate voted 70-26 to overturn him, following the House of Representatives, which voted 383-41 to override. The bill now becomes law.

Twenty-one Republicans in the Senate and 153 in the House broke ranks with Bush and joined majority Democrats to overturn the veto in this election-year vote.

Supporters of the legislation argued that the scheduled 11 percent pay cut for doctors would discourage many of them from taking on Medicare patients.

The bill would offset the cost to the government of restoring the doctors' pay by cutting payments to big insurers, such as UnitedHealth Group Inc (UNH.N: #HYPERLINK "/stocks/quote?symbol=UNH.N"Quote, #HYPERLINK "/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=UNH.N"Profile, #HYPERLINK "/stocks/researchReports?symbol=UNH.N"Research, Stock Buzz) and Aetna Inc (AET.N: #HYPERLINK "/stocks/quote?symbol=AET.N"Quote, #HYPERLINK "/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=AET.N"Profile, #HYPERLINK "/stocks/researchReports?symbol=AET.N"Research, Stock Buzz), which have contracts with the Medicare program.

Democrats argued that those contracts with private health care plans, which were encouraged in the 2003 legislation creating a new government drug benefit for the elderly, cost more than providing health coverage under the traditional Medicare program.

They also argued that more generous subsidies to private health plans threaten to undermine the traditional Medicare program.

MESSAGE TO BUSH

"Let's send a message to the president his days of doing us harm are very, very limited," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat.

Over the years, Democrats and Bush have clashed over his proposed budget cuts for Medicare and the huge new prescription drug benefit he pushed through Congress in 2003.

Tuesday's votes marked the fourth time in his two terms that Bush has had a veto overturned by Congress. Bush has vetoed 12 bills during nearly eight years as president. Nearly all of those vetoes were since Democrats gained their congressional majority in 2007.

Bush said the $13 billion in reimbursement cuts to insurers will discourage program participation and reduce choices for the elderly.

"I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall reductions in physician payments. Yet taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians is wrong. This bill is objectionable, and I am vetoing it," Bush said in a statement to the House.

Doctors and the seniors' group AARP supported the bill and waged an aggressive lobbying effort to prevent the doctors' pay cut. The legislation was approved by Congress last week with strong bipartisan support.

The AARP issued a statement on Tuesday saying it will make sure its 39 million members get information on how lawmakers voted on the veto override.

"This bill will improve Medicare for the 44 million Americans who depend on it for quality, affordable health care," said Nancy LeaMond, AARP's executive vice president.

The bill is a temporary measure designed to stop the pay cut for doctors and give Congress and the next president, who takes office Jan. 20, 2009, time to review broader issues surrounding Medicare. The health care program faces growing financial strains as the 77 million baby boom generation retires and begins to draw on government benefits. (Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria; Editing by David Alexander)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- 4th overturn of 12 vetos....not a real good ratio, esp considering he didn't veto anything for the first 5 1/2 years when the necks had control of Congress.

- This is for the idiots who voted for Bush:

"Let's send a message to the president his days of doing us harm are very, very limited,"

- Tuesday's votes marked the fourth time in his two terms that Bush has had a veto overturned by Congress. Bush has vetoed 12 bills during nearly eight years as president. Nearly all of those vetoes were since Democrats gained their congressional majority in 2007.

Right, as I recall the only one that was not under Republican COngressional rule was the stem cell bill, the one Nancy Reagan backed and boob vetoed as his first, correct me if my memory is wrong.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:29 pm

i only have one comment

why are you so stuck on parties?
politicians aren't so black and white as that, they are a lot more grey with a few extremist black and whites, but to get anything done the way the system is setup right now they pretty much have to lay claim to one of the two major ruling parties to get in on the fun.

thats why the "official republican party" isn't allt o happy with J.M. because he is more middle of the road than they want.
Obama however claims to be middle of the road but his record and comments show he is anything but that, he is an extremist by any sense of the word.

Mach10 · Post by **Mach10** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:33 pm

McCaine is by no stretch of the word "moderate."

Obama is by no sretch of the word "extremist."

Kohburn, you're berating Ebs for focusing on partisanship, while doing exactly the same thing while forming your own judgements on the candidates.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:50 pm

Mach10 wrote:McCaine is by no stretch of the word "moderate."

Obama is by no sretch of the word "extremist."

Kohburn, you're berating Ebs for focusing on partisanship, while doing exactly the same thing while forming your own judgements on the candidates.

I fail to see any berating.

look at their viting histories, McCaine is no libertarian but he is known for siding with the dems ie trator to the "rep party", Obamas voting history shows extremist stance on many issues including gun control, spending. The who partisanship is absurd, look at a candidate for what they have proved through the past where they stand. But its nearly impossible to remove the labels "republican, and democrat" because that is how our country currently views politics, and because those two parties are like the ruling families of our country.

just like how i am registered as a republican because republicans tend to mathc more closely with my views and because without registering as a rep or a dem you have basicly no say in the primaries. I may be registered ad a republican, but i don't want a republic, i'd rather a true democracy free of the politicians that claim to represent the people yet do not take a stand ont he issues that the people support. (perfect example is gun control in md and dc, in md polls have show nearly 98% of the people believe you should be able to get a CCW liscence but every year the bill to fix that gets shot down by the rulling politicians)
the only government shoudl be the organizations set up to uphold the decisions of the people, and maintain a system of checks against coruption, and maintain the various government supported programs like the military, medical, treasury, etc.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:53 pm

sorry for the rant - woosaa woosaa

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:02 pm

A+++++ thread. would read again.

Mach10 · Post by **Mach10** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:11 pm

Kohburn wrote:
I fail to see any berating.

I misread your intent... Sorries!

look at their viting histories, McCaine is no libertarian but he is known for siding with the dems ie trator to the "rep party", Obamas voting history shows extremist stance on many issues including gun control, spending. The who partisanship is absurd, look at a candidate for what they have proved through the past where they stand. But its nearly impossible to remove the labels "republican, and democrat" because that is how our country currently views politics, and because those two parties are like the ruling families of our country.

I think you may be confusing "socialist" "moderate" and "liberal" with the word "extremist."

Extremism is the embracing an ideology that stretches far beyond what would be considered the political "center" (not to be confused with "centrist" politics) of a society. Take the grand sum-total of political slant in the US by it's people, draw it out on a line, and put a big "X" in the exact middle. Anything that stretches past either end of the scale would be "extremist."

It's a perjorative term, used exclusively to label an ideology as dangerously radical or anti-social.

Obama isn't an extremist, since his voting history does not innaccurately represent the views of the USA as a whole. Plenty of people support his ideals--enough that you would be a fool to consider them a minority--which by it's definition puts him firmly in the political spectrum.

He's a left-leaning moderate. Try living in a proper social democracy for a while, then compare and contrast [political] life in the US. I have, and I'm a staunch social-democrat... In case you didn't already know this

There's nothing radical or extreme about Obama's political position, although it's certainly further left than many republicans would be comfortable with.

just like how i am registered as a republican because republicans tend to mathc more closely with my views and because without registering as a rep or a dem you have basicly no say in the primaries. I may be registered ad a republican, but i don't want a republic,

This is the trajedy that is a bi-partisn system. Every election is a case of selecting the "least worst" instead of an outpouring of public will to IMPROVE matters.

As much as I admire Obama, I don't believe he's capable of the social changes he's advocating. Which is thoroughly depressing considering that many of these changes that are a BFD in the US have come and gone in most other parts of the world.

Again, it's a matter of perspective.

i'd rather a true democracy free of the politicians that claim to represent the people yet do not take a stand ont he issues that the people support.

IMNSHO, the people LEAST qualified to run the country are the ones who are voted in.

Coming up in close second are the people who vote for them.

The cold, hard, and brutal fact of the matter is that Americans NEVER vote for change, they vote as hard as they can for things to stay the same.

You rebel for change, but you vote for the status quo...

EDIT: As I re-read this portion, I realize that I'm coming off as a total douchebag with a superiority complex here... Let me ameliorate by saying that for our differences in social ideology, Canadians are every bit as guilty... It's an observation--not an insult

(perfect example is gun control in md and dc, in md polls have show nearly 98% of the people believe you should be able to get a CCW liscence but every year the bill to fix that gets shot down by the rulling politicians)

Different argument altogether, but the point is taken. In an idea system, the elected official will vote on bills/issues the way that his/her constituents vote.

I don't want to argue gun control except to say that placing the "freedom" of carrying a pistol should take a back seat (far, FAR back seat) to some of the more serious concerns affecting America. That it ranks so high in the public conscience is mind-boggling to me. But we can have it out on that issue elsewhere... I promise to be civil

the only government shoudl be the organizations set up to uphold the decisions of the people, and maintain a system of checks against coruption, and maintain the various government supported programs like the military, medical, treasury, etc.

This is a political ideology, not a statement of truth. It's not one that I personally agree with, either.

With respect, my own experience with people is that if you let them do what they want, when they want, and how they want it, you end up with what is technically known as a GIANT CLUSTERFUCK.

The easiest metaphor I can use against government exclusion is a computer network. The biggest threat to any corporate network's PERFORMANCE is not hostile intrusion, it's misuse from within the system--intentional or otherwise. The ART is finding the balance of policy restrictions that allow people to do their jobs without hinderance, but prevent them from cocking up the works.

Where the ideological position moves around is the definition of what constitutes "hinderance."

whipped · Post by **whipped** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:47 pm

Kohburn wrote: look at their viting histories, McCaine is no libertarian but he is known for siding with the dems ie trator to the "rep party", Obamas voting history shows extremist stance on many issues including gun control, spending.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/i ... _john.html

"In 2007, CQ found that McCain voted with his party 90 percent of the time. Also, McCain voted in support of President Bushâ€™s position on legislation 95 percent of the time, the top presidential-support score in the Senate."

EBSB52 · Post by **EBSB52** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:05 pm

Kohburn wrote:i only have one comment

why are you so stuck on parties?
politicians aren't so black and white as that, they are a lot more grey with a few extremist black and whites, but to get anything done the way the system is setup right now they pretty much have to lay claim to one of the two major ruling parties to get in on the fun.

thats why the "official republican party" isn't allt o happy with J.M. because he is more middle of the road than they want.
Obama however claims to be middle of the road but his record and comments show he is anything but that, he is an extremist by any sense of the word.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>why are you so stuck on parties?

I'm not partisan. As of the last sevrl years I have been, as things are waaaaaaaaaaay fucked up thanks to basically exclusively 1 party. Explain how the left has fucked things? As for overall, here's m presidential voting record:

- Carter 1980
- Duchacus
- Mondale (if order is correct)
- Perot
- Dole
- Gore
- Kerry
- Obama (will be)

Now, post your voting record, thry to be honest and let's see all your Dems in your history, you bipartisan guy, you. :scratch:

Hate to shock you, but the country is divided, always has been; remember the Civil War?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>politicians aren't so black and white as that, they are a lot more grey with a few extremist black and whites,.......

I know you'll avoid this, as you do all my tough questions, but list all the pro-choice Repubs. While you're at it, list all the pro-gay rights Repubs. The left is somewhat different, asthere are pro-gun Dems and pro-war Dems, but mostly they have their agenda too, I just like an agenda that provides for healthcare, social assistance, Constitutional rights, etc rather than a party that is pro-corporation (fascist).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.....but to get anything done the way the system is setup right now they pretty much have to lay claim to one of the two major ruling parties to get in on the fun.

And the way the system always has been, right? To get things your way, you have to get your extremists in and hope to move a little your way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thats why the "official republican party" isn't allt o happy with J.M. because he is more middle of the road than they want.

He's less middle than you think, and what he lacks in social NAziism he makes up in war monger, so be happy that youhave a guy who will continue the killing and debt slammin. Please don't pretend the debt is 80% the fault of the neo-cons, it will bore me disproving you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obama however claims to be middle of the road but his record and comments show he is anything but that, he is an extremist by any sense of the word

OH I see, our guy is OK, yours is a POS. Whatever. Uh, Obama is lib on some things, I don;t see him pulling out of Iraq as fast as you think or I want. He will raise taxes on your friends, the corporations and increase some social programs. I think he'll very much mimic what CLinton did that was so successful.

Instead of posturing, illustrate the way Obama is extreme, what will he try to do that is extreme?

EBSB52 · Post by **EBSB52** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:07 pm

Mach10 wrote:McCaine is by no stretch of the word "moderate."

Obama is by no sretch of the word "extremist."

Kohburn, you're berating Ebs for focusing on partisanship, while doing exactly the same thing while forming your own judgements on the candidates.

Thank you, exactly what I wrote before I even read your post.

We are a very divided, partisan country, great place to visit, hate living here :salute:

EBSB52 · Post by **EBSB52** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:38 pm

Kohburn wrote:
Mach10 wrote:McCaine is by no stretch of the word "moderate."

Obama is by no sretch of the word "extremist."

Kohburn, you're berating Ebs for focusing on partisanship, while doing exactly the same thing while forming your own judgements on the candidates.
I fail to see any berating.

look at their viting histories, McCaine is no libertarian but he is known for siding with the dems ie trator to the "rep party", Obamas voting history shows extremist stance on many issues including gun control, spending. The who partisanship is absurd, look at a candidate for what they have proved through the past where they stand. But its nearly impossible to remove the labels "republican, and democrat" because that is how our country currently views politics, and because those two parties are like the ruling families of our country.

just like how i am registered as a republican because republicans tend to mathc more closely with my views and because without registering as a rep or a dem you have basicly no say in the primaries. I may be registered ad a republican, but i don't want a republic, i'd rather a true democracy free of the politicians that claim to represent the people yet do not take a stand ont he issues that the people support. (perfect example is gun control in md and dc, in md polls have show nearly 98% of the people believe you should be able to get a CCW liscence but every year the bill to fix that gets shot down by the rulling politicians)
the only government shoudl be the organizations set up to uphold the decisions of the people, and maintain a system of checks against coruption, and maintain the various government supported programs like the military, medical, treasury, etc.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I fail to see any berating.

Yea, I think Mach meant criticizing, which is true.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>look at their viting histories, McCaine is no libertarian but he is known for siding with the dems ie trator to the "rep party",......

Please, feel free to post RECENT votes that sided with the left.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obamas voting history shows extremist stance on many issues including gun control, spending.

SPENDING? Are you living in the Carter era? The neo-cons, the 3-stooges: Reagan, Bush, Bush are the heros of the debt, need me to explain?

As for Obama, just last week he voted with the Nazi Party on the Survilance Bill:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080709/ap_ ... TcO4SMwfIE

Are you sure we're talking the same McSame and Obama? Or is it that you don't think for yourself and that you listen to Fox, Newsmax and the local workplace neo-con freak that captiates all the co-workers with misinformation? Here was the crux of the Bill:

The bill would protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

That's a vote for corporate AMerica and for the degradation of privacy. Still think he's too liberal?

Here are some measures that OBAMA voted on:

- http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_ ... an_id=9490

Vote to adopt an amendment that limits the amount of subsidies that a married couple may receive to $250,000 and requires that any individual or entity receiving subsidies must be actively involved in a farming operation to receive subsidies.

Both McSame and Obama voted yes to limit farm subsidies, the measure passed as it needed 60 votes, got 56.

- http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_ ... an_id=9490

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007 - HR 1591

Vote to pass a bill that provides supplemental appropriations to various departments for the war on terror and other issues, addresses the minimum wage, and changes the tax code for businesses.

Passed and vetoed by your guy. This bill appropriated money for the war and raised min wage and other things.

- http://www.votesmart.org/voting_categor ... an_id=9490

There are a whole lot of Obama bills if you care to check, some side left, some right, so your argument is very worthy of Fox News, just not valid and correct.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The who partisanship is absurd, look at a candidate for what they have proved through the past where they stand.

And ironically you have ALWAYS voted R, right? Maybe an independant, but never a D, right? So you are also a partisan.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>just like how i am registered as a republican because republicans tend to mathc more closely with my views and because without registering as a rep or a dem you have basicly no say in the primaries.

OK, and your presidential and Congressional general election votes are also ALWAYS REPUBLICAN, but you're not a partisan.... rIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIght. :scratch:
Why a person's party sucks and is on the way out, there is this whining sound....why can't we not be partisn....give us a look...please. Your kingdom has had its chance, I see it as prima facie that they have fucked this country, time go.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i'd rather a true democracy free of the politicians that claim to represent the people yet do not take a stand ont he issues that the people support.

A true democracy is utopian, but Socialist countries come the closest.

EBSB52 · Post by **EBSB52** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:51 pm

Mach10 wrote:
Kohburn wrote:
I fail to see any berating.
I misread your intent... Sorries!

look at their viting histories, McCaine is no libertarian but he is known for siding with the dems ie trator to the "rep party", Obamas voting history shows extremist stance on many issues including gun control, spending. The who partisanship is absurd, look at a candidate for what they have proved through the past where they stand. But its nearly impossible to remove the labels "republican, and democrat" because that is how our country currently views politics, and because those two parties are like the ruling families of our country.
I think you may be confusing "socialist" "moderate" and "liberal" with the word "extremist."

Extremism is the embracing an ideology that stretches far beyond what would be considered the political "center" (not to be confused with "centrist" politics) of a society. Take the grand sum-total of political slant in the US by it's people, draw it out on a line, and put a big "X" in the exact middle. Anything that stretches past either end of the scale would be "extremist."

It's a perjorative term, used exclusively to label an ideology as dangerously radical or anti-social.

Obama isn't an extremist, since his voting history does not innaccurately represent the views of the USA as a whole. Plenty of people support his ideals--enough that you would be a fool to consider them a minority--which by it's definition puts him firmly in the political spectrum.

He's a left-leaning moderate. Try living in a proper social democracy for a while, then compare and contrast [political] life in the US. I have, and I'm a staunch social-democrat... In case you didn't already know this

There's nothing radical or extreme about Obama's political position, although it's certainly further left than many republicans would be comfortable with.

just like how i am registered as a republican because republicans tend to mathc more closely with my views and because without registering as a rep or a dem you have basicly no say in the primaries. I may be registered ad a republican, but i don't want a republic,
This is the trajedy that is a bi-partisn system. Every election is a case of selecting the "least worst" instead of an outpouring of public will to IMPROVE matters.

As much as I admire Obama, I don't believe he's capable of the social changes he's advocating. Which is thoroughly depressing considering that many of these changes that are a BFD in the US have come and gone in most other parts of the world.

Again, it's a matter of perspective.

i'd rather a true democracy free of the politicians that claim to represent the people yet do not take a stand ont he issues that the people support.
IMNSHO, the people LEAST qualified to run the country are the ones who are voted in.

Coming up in close second are the people who vote for them.

The cold, hard, and brutal fact of the matter is that Americans NEVER vote for change, they vote as hard as they can for things to stay the same.

You rebel for change, but you vote for the status quo...

EDIT: As I re-read this portion, I realize that I'm coming off as a total douchebag with a superiority complex here... Let me ameliorate by saying that for our differences in social ideology, Canadians are every bit as guilty... It's an observation--not an insult

(perfect example is gun control in md and dc, in md polls have show nearly 98% of the people believe you should be able to get a CCW liscence but every year the bill to fix that gets shot down by the rulling politicians)
Different argument altogether, but the point is taken. In an idea system, the elected official will vote on bills/issues the way that his/her constituents vote.

I don't want to argue gun control except to say that placing the "freedom" of carrying a pistol should take a back seat (far, FAR back seat) to some of the more serious concerns affecting America. That it ranks so high in the public conscience is mind-boggling to me. But we can have it out on that issue elsewhere... I promise to be civil

the only government shoudl be the organizations set up to uphold the decisions of the people, and maintain a system of checks against coruption, and maintain the various government supported programs like the military, medical, treasury, etc.
This is a political ideology, not a statement of truth. It's not one that I personally agree with, either.

With respect, my own experience with people is that if you let them do what they want, when they want, and how they want it, you end up with what is technically known as a GIANT CLUSTERFUCK.

The easiest metaphor I can use against government exclusion is a computer network. The biggest threat to any corporate network's PERFORMANCE is not hostile intrusion, it's misuse from within the system--intentional or otherwise. The ART is finding the balance of policy restrictions that allow people to do their jobs without hinderance, but prevent them from cocking up the works.

Where the ideological position moves around is the definition of what constitutes "hinderance."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There's nothing radical or extreme about Obama's political position, although it's certainly further left than many republicans would be comfortable with.

Right, with us or against us is the Repub moniker, so yes, to them with their abstract and skewed defintion Obama is extreme. To objective people, he is very moderate, hell, he's even voting for war funding.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The cold, hard, and brutal fact of the matter is that Americans NEVER vote for change, they vote as hard as they can for things to stay the same.

You rebel for change, but you vote for the status quo...

Not only the way they vote but the way they act/react. The American worker is a pussy that is scared of American corporation and talk tough, but walk on each other's picket lines and advocate no socialized med care, even tho they desperately need it. The American worker is a hybrid between ignorant and scared, hid behind a facade of, "These colors don't run."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>EDIT: As I re-read this portion, I realize that I'm coming off as a total douchebag with a superiority complex here... Let me ameliorate by saying that for our differences in social ideology, Canadians are every bit as guilty... It's an observation--not an insult

Maybe, but on a higher end of the spectrum, so it is different; you have the right to be elitist, even tho I don't see it as you have been.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't want to argue gun control except to say that placing the "freedom" of carrying a pistol should take a back seat (far, FAR back seat) to some of the more serious concerns affecting America. That it ranks so high in the public conscience is mind-boggling to me. But we can have it out on that issue elsewhere... I promise to be civil

Seriously. I wanted out of the Air Force so I could grow my hair, as I did before I went in. When I got out I realized that I didn't grow it long, so it was more the right than the use, just as I see I have adopted gun ownership positions/use. I'm still waaaaaay pro-2nd, but it isn't as important as I used to think it was. I would still like the right to own a long rifle when I get out of Nazi-town.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>With respect, my own experience with people is that if you let them do what they want, when they want, and how they want it, you end up with what is technically known as a GIANT CLUSTERFUCK.

Right, to name a few, Enron, Tech bubble, mortgage mess, banking failures, 1991ish and now and other failures. Government intervention is needed.

Mach10 · Post by **Mach10** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:07 pm

EBSB52 wrote: Right, with us or against us is the Repub moniker, so yes, to them with their abstract and skewed defintion Obama is extreme. To objective people, he is very moderate, hell, he's even voting for war funding.

I'm not sure if this is a purely republican tactic, since there seem to be plenty of democrats who subscribe to the same ideology. "With us or Against us" is a nationalistic concept. A dangerous one, too. Stir up enough of this sentiment, and you can do pretty much anything you want--from going to war with other countries, to lining up your country's "undesirables" and stuffing them into ovens.

Not only the way they vote but the way they act/react. The American worker is a pussy that is scared of American corporation and talk tough, but walk on each other's picket lines and advocate no socialized med care, even tho they desperately need it. The American worker is a hybrid between ignorant and scared, hid behind a facade of, "These colors don't run."

There was a great book written by a CBC writer (iirc) about the Culture of Stupidity in North Americans (that's the US *and* Canada).

If you've ever seen the McDonald's ad about how they sell Cappucino (two hot chicks talking about how much they hate anything cultural and/or artistic, and would rather have a snooty coffee in a McD's) you'll see EXACTLY what the author was talking about.

It used to be just the nerds that were ridiculed for being "smart." Now it's the mainstream--which is disturbing to say the least. Not just being ignorant, but being PROUD of the fact. Now, this isn't to say that the majority of North Americans are functionall retarded, but that the popular culture is starting to lean that way.

Maybe, but on a higher end of the spectrum, so it is different; you have the right to be elitist, even tho I don't see it as you have been.

That's the difference between us. You won't ever win an argument putting down your opponent--unless it's a yo-mamma contest--because if they feel you're just beating them over the head and shoulders with words, they won't ever bother to consider your argument.

It's like trying to convince someone of the merits of vegetarianism (more vitamins, fiber, less colorectal cancer etc) while pissing on their steak. You are--technically--correct, but you won't make any converts.

Now, I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I can change everyone's mind with my brilliant wit and sharp rhetoric... But I do [occasionally] make an effort to have my point of view considered.

Seriously. I wanted out of the Air Force so I could grow my hair, as I did before I went in. When I got out I realized that I didn't grow it long, so it was more the right than the use, just as I see I have adopted gun ownership positions/use. I'm still waaaaaay pro-2nd, but it isn't as important as I used to think it was. I would still like the right to own a long rifle when I get out of Nazi-town.

One thing that I think I understand a little better now in my old age (snicker) is the whole gun-control argument as being as much of an ideology (constitution should be unassailable).

What pisses me off though is that the US seems to be more than happy to give up other--more important--constitutional rights (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of movement, right to privacy, right against unreasonable search + seizure) with no complaints, but threaten to take away their toys, and they kick and scream like spoilt children.

Because that's what it's down to: guns are toys. Nobody hunts for subsistance, the Militias are defunct, and "home security" is an illusion.

And this is coming from a Canadian with absolutely no constitutional right to own a firearm. But I am the "proud" owner of a bolt-action Savage .270 that I use to completely miss deer.

Right, to name a few, Enron, Tech bubble, mortgage mess, banking failures, 1991ish and now and other failures. Government intervention is needed.

To be honest, I was talking more about social implications rather than financial. The kind of shit you are talking about will *ALWAYS* happen in a "free market" situation.

The very idea of a "corporation" allows for this kind of abuse, because it allows a panel of executives to avoid any kind of personal responsibility for the economic and/or social abuse perpetrated by a corporation.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:48 am

Mach10 wrote: What pisses me off though is that the US seems to be more than happy to give up other--more important--constitutional rights (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of movement, right to privacy, right against unreasonable search + seizure) with no complaints, but threaten to take away their toys, and they kick and scream like spoilt children.

the NRA actually takes the gov't to court over more than just gun control, they consider themselves defenders of the constitution from what I've gathered.

part of the problem is that throughout history, taking guns away from the populace was the begining of a landslide of the gov't stripping the power from the people untill the people rode up with pitchforks or an outside country brought an end to it.

the country beloongs tot he citizens not the politican powers that be

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:56 am

EBSB52 wrote: - http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_ ... an_id=9490

take a close look includign dates - half of the stuff that you would be so proud of him voting for like medicare, child healthcare etc.sure he voted yes for it, but when it came back around a month later for a revote he didn't vote at all.. WTF?

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 10:01 am

EBSB52 wrote:Not only the way they vote but the way they act/react. The American worker is a pussy that is scared of American corporation and talk tough, but walk on each other's picket lines and advocate no socialized med care, even tho they desperately need it. The American worker is a hybrid between ignorant and scared, hid behind a facade of, "These colors don't run."

I feel a quote from 1984 coming.

as for voting for change... well I voted for huckabee

ultimately whoever gets voted in will do both good and bad things, America will survive, the people will complain yet continue to do nothing about it because the vast majority of Americans are too lazy to do anything but complain. and this will be the true downfall of our country, not the parties, not the president. the people.

The Dark Side of Will · Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:34 am

http://punditkitchen.com/2008/07/14/pol ... ush-fault/

Mach10 · Post by **Mach10** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:13 pm

Kohburn wrote:part of the problem is that throughout history, taking guns away from the populace was the begining of a landslide of the gov't stripping the power from the people untill the people rode up with pitchforks or an outside country brought an end to it.

:bs:

The landslide of totalitarianism (or facism) has ALWAYS been the fanning of nationalist furor and jingoistic pride--following the dissolution of human rights--NOT civil liberties... "Gun Control" is a new phenomenon of the last 80 years or so.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:05 am

disarming the enslaved populace didn't always involve guns because guns are relatively knew to the world

did you know that it used to be that the only people not allowed to carry a gun in the US without a permit were slaves (purchased by the slaves owner)

also most states have in writing that they can not be held liable for showing up to a scene too late or not at all. if they are not required to protect your life at all times then how can they prevent you from protecting yourself.

thee is so much backwards thinking in "gun-control" - and obama is one of the worst offenders strickly based on his voting history and things he's said int he past (his current front is a little different, pretending to support hunters)

Mach10 · Post by **Mach10** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:22 am

Kohburn wrote:disarming the enslaved populace didn't always involve guns because guns are relatively knew to the world

Well, at least you get that distinction

The way some NRA wingnuts talk, you'd be forced to assume Jesus was packing an Uzi (while riding a dinosaur)

did you know that it used to be that the only people not allowed to carry a gun in the US without a permit were slaves (purchased by the slaves owner)

Irrelevant. The timeframe you are talking about was a Union that had about 80-90% of it's population in a RURAL setting. Nowadays, 90% of the population is urban.

also most states have in writing that they can not be held liable for showing up to a scene too late or not at all. if they are not required to protect your life at all times then how can they prevent you from protecting yourself.

Paranoia is never a justification for militarization. Fact of the matter is that guns in the US are rarely used for protection. If they were, you'd see a significant statistical drop in crimes per 100k... Reality is that the US is up there for some of the worst crime rates--significantly higher than many countries that prohibit CCW weapons. Even better (for my argument at least) is that crime has been on a steady decline for the past 50 years--despite toughening gun laws.

How do you explain that off?

thee is so much backwards thinking in "gun-control" - and obama is one of the worst offenders strickly based on his voting history and things he's said int he past (his current front is a little different, pretending to support hunters)

I agree--but the backwards thinking rests pretty much on the vocal majority of pro-gun activists.

All the "reasoning" that comes from pro-gunners is outdated, medieval thinking that lost it's relevancy when the US became a thriving urban society--not a frontier of wilderness pioneering.

At the end of the day, though, my concern is the same: Gun control gets far more "airtime" than it legitimately deserves. There are far, FAR greater problems in the US that urgently need attention.