1st to declare a Romney presidency

[Postictal Raiden]

The Economist is endorsing Obama. They put out a pretty fair and unbiased article talking about the pros/cons of each candidate and why Obama is a better choice (or again, more like who is the lesser of two evils).
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-fit-bill-which-one?fsrc=scn/rd_ec/which_one_

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sweetalkr]

the economist has turned into a liberal populist magazine. don't believe a word it writes. there are no unbiased magazines/media sources anymore.

at least the wall street journal (conservative) has liberal and conservative writers contribute, but it is still conservative biased

 

[GoodmanBrown]

The Economist is endorsing Obama. They put out a pretty fair and unbiased article talking about the pros/cons of each candidate and why Obama is a better choice (or again, more like who is the lesser of two evils).
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-fit-bill-which-one?fsrc=scn/rd_ec/which_one_

Hey could you please post more articles from the liberal propaganda sites? The HUFFINTON PO--- I mean, THE ECONOMIST???

 

[yappy]

I'm getting so sick of the bias/propaganda arguments.

There is no collective mainstream media, and if there were, the large amount of conserv talk radio and fox news would be apart of it. Journals like The Economist are great and don't contain some sort of agenda to elect a democrat.

Yes there are some publications that are liberal/conserv but not all. Sometimes you just need to learn to roll with punches and not lash out accusing everyone of having agenda or being in collusion if you disagree with them.

READ: Logical Fallacy Poisoning the Well.

Hey could you please post more articles from the liberal propaganda sites? The HUFFINTON PO--- I mean, THE ECONOMIST???

 

[pgg]

Both Obama and Romney have pretty amazingly bad and cynical economic plans that I think have about a 0% chance of meaningfully altering the nation's economic trajectory over the next couple decades.

Accordingly, I didn't vote based on which one I thought would be a terrible deficit spender vs a horrible deficit spender, or which one would funnel public money to malicious evil corporations or to lazy scamming poor people.

We need sweeping, fundamental change to tax policy, energy policy, foreign policy, and the notion of what government should be doing to help people or nudge areas of the economy that might be best left to a free market +/- some regulation. And again, given the hole we're in, I don't think either Obama or Romney are sufficiently different to matter all that much ... except that Romney tends to lean somewhat more in the "you're on your own" direction and Obama thinks gov is there to carry everyone who needs or wants to be carried.

If I have any reluctance in my vote for Romney (already signed sealed and delivered) it's that I have been unimpressed or disappointed outright with Republican disregard for some individual and civil rights - everything from gay rights, to abortion, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, the DHS, etc. But I've also realized that Obama doesn't really care about these things either, despite his campaign claims to the contrary. It took him years to end Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, Gitmo is still open, DHS is bigger, there's been no effort to roll back the Patriot Act, and he obviously and clearly doesn't care for 2nd Amendment civil rights as evidenced by his call for another "assault" weapon ban and the whole Fast & Furious mess.

Both Obama and Romney are decent human beings, all this vitriol is really misplaced. I basically disagree with Obama's vision for a what I think is an overbearing nanny state, but I don't hate him for wanting to help people out. I just don't think government should, and I don't think government really CAN in the long run.

SCOTUS does more than decide cases of civil rights, whether pro/anti gay/gun/abortion/speech/religion ... they decide cases that determine what role government can play in the shaping of our country, culture, and daily lives.

And I think the judges Romney will appoint are better aligned with my hopes in that regard, so I voted for him. It's not that I think he'll fix the economy or do the right thing when it comes to gay rights.

 

[Yo GabbaPentin]

The Economist is endorsing Obama. They put out a pretty fair and unbiased article talking about the pros/cons of each candidate and why Obama is a better choice (or again, more like who is the lesser of two evils).
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-fit-bill-which-one?fsrc=scn/rd_ec/which_one_

I actually appreciate the article from the economist. While I may disagree with many points they at least made some points. it is not the Huffington Post stating that they support Obama because Romney hates babies and puppies.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I actually appreciate the article from the economist. While I may disagree with many points they at least made some points. it is not the Huffington Post stating that they support Obama because Romney hates babies and puppies.

"Indeed, the extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap. The Democrats have their implacable fringe too: look at the teachers’ unions. But the Republicans have become a party of Torquemadas, forcing representatives to sign pledges never to raise taxes, to dump the chairman of the Federal Reserve and to embrace an ever more Southern-fried approach to social policy. Under President Romney, new conservative Supreme Court justices would try to overturn Roe v Wade, returning abortion policy to the states. The rights of immigrants (who have hardly had a good deal under Mr Obama) and gays (who have) would also come under threat. This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan, where “small government” meant keeping the state out of people’s bedrooms as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to revive it."

 

[BLADEMDA]

"Indeed, the extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap. The Democrats have their implacable fringe too: look at the teachers’ unions. But the Republicans have become a party of Torquemadas, forcing representatives to sign pledges never to raise taxes, to dump the chairman of the Federal Reserve and to embrace an ever more Southern-fried approach to social policy. Under President Romney, new conservative Supreme Court justices would try to overturn Roe v Wade, returning abortion policy to the states. The rights of immigrants (who have hardly had a good deal under Mr Obama) and gays (who have) would also come under threat. This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan, where “small government” meant keeping the state out of people’s bedrooms as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to revive it."

Purse Biased Crap. Romney is doing what any smart politician does. Take a position to the right of wht you will actually settle for once the negotiation process gets underway.

I, for one, believe a President Romney will try hard to get Democrats on board with his plans even if that means compromise on all the issues. Romney is pragmatist unlike Obama so that means bargaining is part of the process.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

Both Obama and Romney have pretty amazingly bad and cynical economic plans that I think have about a 0% chance of meaningfully altering the nation's economic trajectory over the next couple decades.

Accordingly, I didn't vote based on which one I thought would be a terrible deficit spender vs a horrible deficit spender, or which one would funnel public money to malicious evil corporations or to lazy scamming poor people.

We need sweeping, fundamental change to tax policy, energy policy, foreign policy, and the notion of what government should be doing to help people or nudge areas of the economy that might be best left to a free market +/- some regulation. And again, given the hole we're in, I don't think either Obama or Romney are sufficiently different to matter all that much ... except that Romney tends to lean somewhat more in the "you're on your own" direction and Obama thinks gov is there to carry everyone who needs or wants to be carried.

If I have any reluctance in my vote for Romney (already signed sealed and delivered) it's that I have been unimpressed or disappointed outright with Republican disregard for some individual and civil rights - everything from gay rights, to abortion, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, the DHS, etc. But I've also realized that Obama doesn't really care about these things either, despite his campaign claims to the contrary. It took him years to end Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, Gitmo is still open, DHS is bigger, there's been no effort to roll back the Patriot Act, and he obviously and clearly doesn't care for 2nd Amendment civil rights as evidenced by his call for another "assault" weapon ban and the whole Fast & Furious mess.

Both Obama and Romney are decent human beings, all this vitriol is really misplaced. I basically disagree with Obama's vision for a what I think is an overbearing nanny state, but I don't hate him for wanting to help people out. I just don't think government should, and I don't think government really CAN in the long run.

SCOTUS does more than decide cases of civil rights, whether pro/anti gay/gun/abortion/speech/religion ... they decide cases that determine what role government can play in the shaping of our country, culture, and daily lives.

And I think the judges Romney will appoint are better aligned with my hopes in that regard, so I voted for him. It's not that I think he'll fix the economy or do the right thing when it comes to gay rights.

pgg, I agree with pretty much everything you say above. That said, for someone I agree pretty thoroughly with, I just can't wrap my head around your SCOTUS beliefs.

Do you truly value the second amendment above women's rights regarding equal pay and abortion, money representing free speech, more rights for corporations, fewer rights for gays, and a throwdown of the Voting Rights Act? These are all cases the SC heard recently or will likely hear in the next year or two, and from your posts, it seems like you value at least of few of these. Is it so important to live in a country where we can legally buy grenade launchers and AR-15s that you're okay telling gays they can't get a legally recognized union and women can't get a legal abortion? I certainly don't know much about you, but your postings indicate you'd at least be conflicted about it. Anyway, thoughts appreciated.

 

[pgg]

Do you truly value the second amendment above women's rights regarding equal pay and abortion, money representing free speech, more rights for corporations, fewer rights for gays, and a throwdown of the Voting Rights Act? These are all cases the SC heard recently or will likely hear in the next year or two, and from your posts, it seems like you value at least of few of these. Is it so important to live in a country where we can legally buy grenade launchers and AR-15s that you're okay telling gays they can't get a legally recognized union and women can't get a legal abortion? I certainly don't know much about you, but your postings indicate you'd at least be conflicted about it. Anyway, thoughts appreciated.

I am conflicted about it. It's excruciating to have to decide between two parties that are a lot more alike than not. One guy wants to infringe civil right #1, the other wants to infringe civil right #2.

I value all civil rights more or less equally, with those explicitly protected by the Constitution being first among equals.


ALL freedom, ALL liberty in the history of mankind has come at the end of the most lethal weapon of the day. From club to gun. If I was a single issue voter, and I'm about 90% there some days, it would be gun rights.

So yes, I value gun rights more than abortion rights or gay marriage rights. That's not to say I don't value those rights too.


It helps me to remember that womens rights, gay rights, speech rights, all rights EXCEPT gun rights have progressively improved over the last 100 years, despite the party in power changing every few years and having pretty strong opinions on all them all. R v W has stood for decades; still controversial, but honestly probably less now than it was then. Gay rights are riding an unstoppable tide of progress. I think everybody recognizes this. Marriage is important but it's one of the finer details in their gains. (And most of that fight is over the label "marriage" and semantics; IMO the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.) There are even sensible cracks showing in the drug prohibition boondoggle. I don't smoke marijuana, but it looks very much like we won't be arresting people for smoking it for too much longer.

And then there's gun control. A nearly continuous trajectory of more and more restriction, born mostly from racism and classism, but also driven by fear, cooked data, emotional arguments, short memories / ignorance of history, and healthy doses of it-can't-happen-here naivete. A few of the high points: The 1934 National Firearms Act. The 1968 Gun Control Act. The 1994 "federal" assault weapon ban. About the only bright spot has been the widespread, nearly nationwide adoption of shall-issue carry permit laws ... and that's mostly a phenomenon of the last 10 years.

You can't point to ANY other civil right and draw the same kind of progressively restrictive deterioration over the last 100 years. There's a lot of lost ground and bad precedent to undo in the area of gun rights, and it finally started to unwind with Heller and McDonald.


And I know you're not trying to emotionally/irrationally bias this discussion, but when you mention "grenade launchers and AR-15s" you're distorting the actual debate. Right now, there are laws prohibiting the ownership, possession, purchase, and carry of handguns in different locales within the United States. To say that the gun right debate is only about machine guns and tanks and napalm is missing the bulk of the point.

The 2nd Amendment is not about "sportsmen" and deer hunting. It's about armed self defense. I want every single American who is not a convicted violent felon or mentally unsound to have the ability to purchase, possess, and carry ANY weapon for the singular purpose of killing other human beings. THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment. Armed self defense is the most fundamental of all civil rights, and should not be denied to any person without due process.

(In truth, I want every single human on the planet to enjoy this right, but all we can do is start with our own country.)

And again:

SCOTUS does more than decide cases of civil rights, whether pro/anti gay/gun/abortion/speech/religion ... they decide cases that determine what role government can play in the shaping of our country, culture, and daily lives.

But to get back to your question, YES. I am uneasy and conflicted about it all. And I probably will be until Gary Johnson is president and gets to appoint 9 genuinely libertarian Justices after some bad mayonnaise at a SCOTUS barbecue clears the bench. So I expect to be uneasy and conflicted for a long time.

 

[leviathan]

Hey could you please post more articles from the liberal propaganda sites? The HUFFINTON PO--- I mean, THE ECONOMIST???

Instead of calling anything you disagree with liberal propaganda or a biased publication, why don't you explain what you agree/disagree with in their article and provide evidence to support that?

 

[boanssi]

Nice move Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zax-iuCXcWQ&feature=g-logo-xit

 

[boanssi]

I'd love to see arguments from the Romney supporters against these facts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r6TA1PNG_M&feature=related


Oh, wait. There aren't!!

 

[BLADEMDA]

I'd love to see arguments from the Romney supporters against these facts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r6TA1PNG_M&feature=related


Oh, wait. There aren't!!

The Election is in 48 hours. The voters will decide who is the President of the United States. Just wait 2 days then resume all the propaganda postings about Romney if he wins the election.

 

[BLADEMDA]

By MAGGIE HABERMAN | 11/3/12 10:42 AM EDT


Mitt Romney has been making a pitch for bipartisanship in the closing days of the race, and this morning rolled out an endorsement from Hillary Clinton's former Senate state director, Gigi Georges:

"For most of my life, I've been an active Democrat. I am proud to have worked for President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, during that time, I saw firsthand what can be accomplished by strong, bipartisan leadership. I know what it means to work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people. And that's why I am supporting Mitt Romney. Governor Romney has a plan to restore the prosperity this country deserves and expects. He will work with people of good will no matter what their party, and he will pursue the policies that are in the best interest of our country, no matter who proposes them. That's what President Obama promised to do four years ago. But like so many of his promises, bipartisan cooperation is just another one he has broken. We can't have four more years of failed policies and two parties that can't work together. We need the change Mitt Romney is offering."
​

 

[boanssi]

The Election is in 48 hours. The voters will decide who is the President of the United States. Just wait 2 days then resume all the propaganda postings about Romney if he wins the election.

Of course it's propaganda. and not actual facts.
You're full of ****.

 

[Yo GabbaPentin]

I see you have advanced your thinking from the HUFFINGTON post to YOUTUBE? And then call someone ELSE full of ****?? You are a truly amazing individual. I hope for your sake that you are some ultra conservative nut posing as a liberal and intentionally trying to look ridiculous.

If you are voting for Obama because you truly think that he will do a better job over the next four years or place all of your weight behind social issues such as gay marriage, well... I can completely respect that. To argue that Obama has done a great job is not even debatable. And to come out with YOUTUBE and HUFFINGTON POST bashing Romney over such nonsense is unbelievably stupid. But to call someone else full of **** after your special ed behavior is inexcusable.

 

[leviathan]

I think perhaps he was frustrated, as I am, that the standard Republican defense in here to any information that attacks Romney is "that's all biased propaganda". I would really love to learn what exactly was biased and why what I'm reading is so incorrect. Perhaps someone would feel free to enlighten us and back it up with neutral sources? I am pretty open minded and would love to see your point of view.

For instance, I would love for someone to explain how Romney's tax cuts are not going to make the deficit worse, and what "loopholes" exactly he will close? Perhaps it's the ones he uses himself so that he allegedly didn't have to pay taxes for the past 10 years? (Side note: someone give me an UNBIASED reference on that one, because im getting two stories on it). Also, why is Romney trying to increase the military budget beyond what even the military has asked for?

I am all for low corporate tax rates and believe that it will help the economy. I am not for rates that simply allow wealthy people to pay less income tax than someone in the middle class when all the tax savings they earned are just going into their bank accounts. Yes a CEO has the right to make millions of dollars, but s/he should pay the same tax as everyone else on those millions, unless those tax savings legitimately are going towards job creation, which in my jaded opinion they seldom do.

I am not about either big or small government. I'm about intelligent government and, for instance, tax laws that promote business and job creation, but have stipulations to prevent loopholes. As a soon-to-be physician with many practicing friends, I'm already aware of a lot of these legal loopholes that they use to pay less tax which I've been told to do. I don't see any of my friends helping with job creation while paying less tax than my friends in the middle class. The bottom line is if you are voting for Romney because it will help yourself, I think that's a completely legitimate reason and I don't hold it against anyone for wanting to pay less money. I just hate when people try to argue he's better for the economy as a whole because if that's true, nobody has been able to explain it to me yet.

 

[pgg]

For instance, I would love for someone to explain how Romney's tax cuts are not going to make the deficit worse,

The idea is that tax cuts are pro-business growth, which creates jobs, which increases the tax base, which increases revenues more than the tax cuts reduce them. Better yet, the jobs are non-government-funded useful-work private sector jobs, which are far better and more permanent than make-work government jobs.


I'm moderately skeptical that it'll work out that way, but to be honest it doesn't strike me as any crazier than Obama's notion that you can raise taxes without harming business and private sector jobs, or that government-funded "shovel ready" jobs are in any way sustainable.

 

[ToasterThief]

the economist has turned into a liberal populist magazine.

Hahahahahahaha thanks for the laughs Anesthesia forum!

 

[leviathan]

The idea is that tax cuts are pro-business growth, which creates jobs, which increases the tax base, which increases revenues more than the tax cuts reduce them. Better yet, the jobs are non-government-funded useful-work private sector jobs, which are far better and more permanent than make-work government jobs.


I'm moderately skeptical that it'll work out that way, but to be honest it doesn't strike me as any crazier than Obama's notion that you can raise taxes without harming business and private sector jobs, or that government-funded "shovel ready" jobs are in any way sustainable.

Fair enough, I can respect that. I think you can raise taxes without harming business though..what if there were tax breaks / incentives for businesses that actually hired more employees and expanded vs. those businesses that just kept the extra profits in the upper level management's wallets?

 

[pgg]

Fair enough, I can respect that. I think you can raise taxes without harming business though..what if there were tax breaks / incentives for businesses that actually hired more employees and expanded vs. those businesses that just kept the extra profits in the upper level management's wallets?

Maybe? Sure. I don't know. Devil's in the details. I have a knee-jerk aversion to adding more complexity to the tax code (break + incentive = loophole).

 

[powermd]

I am all for low corporate tax rates and believe that it will help the economy.

I can't tell you what large corporations do with the money they get from tax cuts, but I can tell you what our small business would do if we were to save money on taxes-- POCKET THE MONEY. We'll create some jobs when the economy creates demand beyond our capacity to deliver product.

 

[Yo GabbaPentin]

I can't tell you what large corporations do with the money they get from tax cuts, but I can tell you what our small business would do if we were to save money on taxes-- POCKET THE MONEY. We'll create some jobs when the economy creates demand beyond our capacity to deliver product.

On the flip side, I can tell you what our small business plans on doing with significant tax increases. We will be laying off employees and making our current ones work harder. Most small businesses can't afford to expand with significantly increased taxes. Most are also having a hard time providing health care, even with the "affordable" care act.

Yes, you may pocket the money. What do you do with the money after you pocket it? Do you store it under your mattress and never use it again? Or do you spend the money on extra vacations, home upgrades, investing, etc.? This is the principle for which Republicans are arguing will help the economy.

I understand the argument that most Democrats have regarding the middle class stimulating the economy. If the middle class is doing well, then they will be the ones spending money on various things which will ultimately improve the economy. The only problem with this model is that the middle class do not employ anyone for the most part. Reaching in to the pockets of the employers to give to the middle class will result in less jobs. And a greater problem which has been going on in government is that the tax money never makes it to the middle class. Instead, the money goes towards special interests on both sides of the aisle. Democrats love jobs but hate employers.

The childish messages from the president which are re-iterated by his followers have been unhelpful at best. His campaign has been childish, petty and unprofessional. If he would have been more positive and actually laid out some sort of plan, I think he would have won this in a landslide. Instead, he is in the fight of his life.

Again, as I have stated earlier in this post, I have no problem paying more taxes. However, I do have a problem being the only one paying more taxes. I do not use any more government resources than anyone else. In fact, I use significantly less while paying for a large percentage already.

Let's use an analogy. 300 million people walk into a restaurant called the government café and sit at the same table. The lower and middle class sits on one end and and the "wealthy" sit at another. My end of the table orders a moderate portion. Looking down at the other end of the table, they are ordering three of the most expensive plates while stuffing things in their pockets complaining that they are treated unfair. The bill then comes and I have a very large bill while the other end of the table pays nothing and complains that it is too much. So the argument right now is that I should pay more? I say f**k you, eat less.

 

[doctor712]

SCOTUS does more than decide cases of civil rights, whether pro/anti gay/gun/abortion/speech/religion ... they decide cases that determine what role government can play in the shaping of our country, culture, and daily lives.

And I think the judges Romney will appoint are better aligned with my hopes in that regard, so I voted for him. It's not that I think he'll fix the economy or do the right thing when it comes to gay rights.

There's on HUGE caveat up there. And that is, SCOTUS only takes cases (...."that determine role of government..." as you say) IF and ONLY IF, they a) make it to the supreme court and b) are cases that raise a question of constitutionality in the very first place.

So if policy (however half-assed) it seems, is grounded on constitutional grounds, then they'd have no reason or right to review. That is, if a case never arose. So, what percent of cases that GUIDE THE US GOVERNMENT ever make it to the supreme court? I'd say something around .0000000001%. Give or take a few zeros. When the BIG cases do make it, then we hear about it and you are right. But relying on that argument to vote, as a main criteria, I think, is highly questionable.

Now, if your most important criteria for a president is a) abortion rights, b) gay marital rights then VOTE away for the supreme court vis-a-vis obama or romney. and some people will. abortion rights and gay rights are important to me. and i have reason to vote obama's way in this regard, especially considering the court will lose two justices if romney wins. there are years however, that justices make it clear they aren't leaving or retiring, so, that means bupkis during those elections.

Tomorrow will be fun if nothing else.

D712

 

[doctor712]

ALL freedom, ALL liberty in the history of mankind has come at the end of the most lethal weapon of the day. From club to gun. If I was a single issue voter, and I'm about 90% there some days, it would be gun rights....

So yes, I value gun rights more than abortion rights or gay marriage rights. That's not to say I don't value those rights too.

And then there's gun control. A nearly continuous trajectory of more and more restriction, born mostly from racism and classism, but also driven by fear, cooked data, emotional arguments, short memories / ignorance of history, and healthy doses of it-can't-happen-here naivete. A few of the high points: The 1934 National Firearms Act. The 1968 Gun Control Act. The 1994 "federal" assault weapon ban. About the only bright spot has been the widespread, nearly nationwide adoption of shall-issue carry permit laws ... and that's mostly a phenomenon of the last 10 years.

You can't point to ANY other civil right and draw the same kind of progressively restrictive deterioration over the last 100 years.

That's untrue. Biased and untrue. You're only thinking about your precious guns dude, think about what Blacks, Gays and Women have had to fight through to get to 2012, whereby Romney would like to send them all to 1812. Ridiculous claim, Pgg.

And I know you're not trying to emotionally/irrationally bias this discussion, but when you mention "grenade launchers and AR-15s" you're distorting the actual debate.

No, that IS the debate. You say we distort, and we say you distort. We take the extreme argument because you argue an equally extreme one: that ANY human (aside from those u listed) should be able to take 100000 rounds and such and use it in ANY weapon (your words), with no limits -- is extreme. Oh - and not explicitly granted in the US Constitution, for starters.

The 2nd Amendment is not about "sportsmen" and deer hunting. It's about armed self defense.

Circa 1787, sure.

I want every single American who is not a convicted violent felon or mentally unsound to have the ability to purchase, possess, and carry ANY weapon...

Now THAT IS extreme. Sorry PGG. We can only use the examples that you extremists give us to use.

THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment.

I thought we agreed you wouldn't debate the Constitution. Oh wait, you declined and only debate others here. Gotcha. Roger that. In the name of those people who died in Aurora this year (at the hands of a automatic weapon shooting nutjob), I stick to my claim: I will curtail every single argument you ever put forward that I find on this board regarding to guns and the 2nd amendment. And call you out for not knowing your constitutional politics while arguing the same. And also raise people's suspicions that you wouldn't debate this with me and only with others.


D712

 

[Yo GabbaPentin]

You can't point to ANY other civil right and draw the same kind of progressively restrictive deterioration over the last 100 years.

That's untrue. Biased and untrue. You're only thinking about your precious guns dude, think about what Blacks, Gays and Women have had to fight through to get to 2012, whereby Romney would like to send them all to 1812. Ridiculous claim, Pgg.



No, that IS the debate. You say we distort, and we say you distort. We take the extreme argument because you argue an equally extreme one: that ANY human (aside from those u listed) should be able to take 100000 rounds and such and use it in ANY weapon (your words), with no limits -- is extreme. Oh - and not explicitly granted in the US Constitution, for starters.


Circa 1787, sure.


Now THAT IS extreme. Sorry PGG. We can only use the examples that you extremists give us to use.

I thought we agreed you wouldn't debate the Constitution. Oh wait, you declined and only debate others here. Gotcha. Roger that. In the name of those people who died in Aurora this year (at the hands of a automatic weapon shooting nutjob), I stick to my claim: I will curtail every single argument you ever put forward that I find on this board regarding to guns and the 2nd amendment. And call you out for not knowing your constitutional politics while arguing the same. And also raise people's suspicions that you wouldn't debate this with me and only with others.


D712

Maybe one of the best and most knowledgable posting attendings on this forum doesn't want to argue with one of the most annoying premeds? And Romney wants to send blacks and women back hundreds of years? Show me even the smallest amount of evidence on that one. ANYTHING. That is the one of the most absurd and uneducated statements I have heard. That's as ridiculous as saying that Obama wants the US to be the USSR. THAT statement has more proof as he was mentored by some serious socialists/communists. Show me a KKK leader or anyone who Romney hung out with that would even lead ANYONE to make a statement like you made.

You have differing opinions on certain issues. Great. We are happy to hear them. Maybe you could even have a couple original thoughts rather than your brainwashed "republicans are racist and hate women" at some point in the future. But don't come in here and attempt to be condescending towards the better posters on the entire forums. Because here is the thing. Pgg has earned a level of Internet respect through years of great posts which help students. YOU do not have anything resembling that respect. YOU have a history of getting into it with anyone and everyone. Yes you always seem to amuse yourself, but I'd venture to say that you are alone in your amusement.

To save you time, I will not get into anything further with you as that seems to be your thing here on sdn. Best of luck with your career.

 

[doctor712]

YoGP,

PGG wanted to argue until....he didn't want to argue. but thanks for coming to his defense, a defense even I can admit PGG doesn't need.

Argue? No. Discuss? Sure.

1) When did I generalize and call republicans racists?

2) When did I say republicans hate women?

Why don't you reread what I wrote, which I stand by. Romney is NOT in favor of women's rights, he wants to overturn roe v wade, and send women's rights back to the stone age. furthermore, he wants homosexuals to have less rights than you or I. To me, YGP, that's 1812. Or 1912. Or 1712. Enough evidence for you there?

As far as your respect/attacks on me, your feelings therein mean zilch to me. I've carried myself one way on this board, and that's truthful to what I feel, and respectful to those who are mutually respectful, and to those that SHI@ on me, I respond in kind. Really simple. Just like in life.

YGP, do you realize how many DOZENS of supportive private messages I get from "respected senior attendings" here for not putting up with the docs that treat others, myself included, like garbage? And get nasty when they do. I'd have been banned 100,000 times over had I not built up a SOLID set of threads not only here but on pre-med as well. But yeah, HERE, in anesthesia. So, check your facts.

You and, my friend, will agree to disagree. Continued success in your career as well, and seeing your whopping 125 posts here over a mere few months, continued success in becoming a respected and valued member of the anesthesia forum. I can see you're well on your way. Thanks for the posting advice!!! Grain of salt.

D712

 

[countingdays]

Obama wants women, men, gays, straights, whites, hispanics, blacks, asians, americans and immigrants ALL to have fewer rights and for the government to have unlimited power over ALL of our lives. He does not believe in individual liberty. He does not believe in the constitution of the united states. It's a joke that anyone can act like he stands up for anyone's rights.

 

[deleted126335]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=i+voted+for+kodos

 

[pgg]

Maybe one of the best and most knowledgable posting attendings on this forum doesn't want to argue with one of the most annoying premeds?

Thanks for the compliment, but it's a politics thread. Academic and anesthesia credentials have nothing to do with why I ignore him now.

 

[Yo GabbaPentin]

Enough evidence for you there?

D712

No. It is not enough evidence for me. Please educate me on the role of gays, blacks and women in Roe vs Wade which apparently happened in 1812. So far you are using as much logic as Obama but not as much as the underpants gnomes from South Park.

 

[leviathan]

Obama wants women, men, gays, straights, whites, hispanics, blacks, asians, americans and immigrants ALL to have fewer rights and for the government to have unlimited power over ALL of our lives. He does not believe in individual liberty. He does not believe in the constitution of the united states. It's a joke that anyone can act like he stands up for anyone's rights.

Baseless propaganda...clearly define how he will take away your rights and which rights he is taking away rather than just regurgitating fear tactics and hyperbole. How does he not believe in individual liberty?

I think the guy who doesnt want to let two people in love get married is the person taking away freedoms and rights. Or the guy who wants to control what a woman can do with her own body.

 

[badasshairday]

blah blah. Obama is not my president.

Between 2008-2012, the government has taken over student loans. DIRECT LOANS, they call it owns all of our debt for medical school. Obama got rid of the "middle man" banks who use to bankroll us our loans... and use to compete against each other. Those "middle men" use to give us a 0.25% break on our interest just for paying 20 payments in a row on time and other little incentives. We get none of that now that big brother DIRECT LOANS owns our debt and has not competitor.

In addition to that, there are NO MORE SUBSIDIZED loans. They are gone. See ya... Only unsubsidized loans which start accruing interest on day 1 of disbursement while you are a helpless student.

I thought Obama was going to fix student loans? Don't forget, this was truly his novel idea, he had to get rid of the "middle man" and have the government take over loans.

Let's not forget that all of this is happening in light of increasing medical school debt load and decreasing physician salaries. And you will of course have the privilege "to pay a little more in taxes" because you are part of the "rich".

What else? Obamacare. The trojan horse to get a full scale government take over of health care down the road. That is the end game of Obamacare, health care provided solely by the US government. Everybody will have medicaid, private practice will be over, we will all be hospital employees. This doesn't sound great to me.

Don't forget when he addressed the nursing lobby/union, he is all for the DNP. In other countries that are socialized like Canada, physicians are the only ones that provide real medical care. But we won't have that here with Obamacare. Because Obamacare will allow the whole country to have a "doctor", which we all know is a farce.

Screw Obama, just like he screwed us. I'm 100% for Romney.

 

[wjs010]

those is swing state:vote romney...

those in every other state: raise GJ awareness!

 

[TRuSchool]

"War on women:" The president of the USA cannot overturn Roe V Wade even if he wanted to. Nor can he overturn the use of contraception. If anything, Republicans are against women receiving free contraception (which is $9.00/month) and against having other people pay for it, especially if they are Catholic and dont believe in it in the first place. So, if you are against paying for other people to get free abortions and free contraception, you are against women? Thats what the Obama campaign is trying to skew everyone into believing. Its a joke.

 

[countingdays]

Baseless propaganda...clearly define how he will take away your rights and which rights he is taking away rather than just regurgitating fear tactics and hyperbole. How does he not believe in individual liberty?

I think the guy who doesnt want to let two people in love get married is the person taking away freedoms and rights. Or the guy who wants to control what a woman can do with her own body.

Obama's government health insurance law is the end of limited government. Apparently, the government can coerce you to do anything it wants based on the right to levy taxes. That is exactly the opposite of the liberty our republic was created to protect.

Obama fundamentally disagrees with liberty. He does not believe you are entitled to the fruits of your labor. There is no freedom if you aren't even free to use your labor to meet your own goals.

What is civil recognition (not a right by the way) of gay marriage when those gay people can have their labor stolen and redistributed? I'm all for recognizing gay marriages, it's just less important than allowing those couples and everyone else to be free.

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend abortion is about a woman controlling her own body. Obviously, it is about a woman controlling another, smaller person's body.

Deficit spending is taxation without representation on future generations.

 

[doctor712]

No. It is not enough evidence for me.

It was a rhetorical question. So, relax.

Please educate me on the role of gays, blacks and women in Roe vs Wade which apparently happened in 1812.

I think you are taking the date of 1812 a bit too literally. Say, 1912, 1943, 1893, and 1901. [/QUOTE]

Further, if you REALLY cannot see the argument that millions of democrats are making about Romney wanting to overturn Roe v Wade, and deny gay rights - both groups that have made tons of progress over the last 50 years, than you really just need to open a history book. It's plain and simple.

D712

 

[doctor712]

"War on women:" The president of the USA cannot overturn Roe V Wade even if he wanted to.

In essence, he can. Since he appoints members to SCOTUS, with the "advice" and "consent" of the senate (God only knows what the founders meant by that one, ay Pgg), he can place members there (for life mind you) who will vote a certain way.

Period. [/QUOTE]

D712

 

[Yo GabbaPentin]

It was a rhetorical question. So, relax.


I think you are taking the date of 1812 a bit too literally. Say, 1912, 1943, 1893, and 1901.

Further, if you REALLY cannot see the argument that millions of democrats are making about Romney wanting to overturn Roe v Wade, and deny gay rights - both groups that have made tons of progress over the last 50 years, than you really just need to open a history book. It's plain and simple.

D712[/QUOTE]

Overturning Roe v Wade is nonsense. No one will ever do it. There are certain things that a Mormon might say to shake out some evangelical vote.

Personally, I agree with equal rights for ALL. Abortion and contraception is none of governments business. They should stay out of it all together. However, opposing government sponsored contraception is hardly a "war on women" as the dems paint it. They make it out as if all women do is take bc pills and get abortions. They get paid less in Obamas own white house. Neither party is more pro women than the other.

 

[periopdoc]

Well all I know is if you think that Obama is going to win a second term, you should run out and buy a bunch of mid-range AR's, cases of 223/5.56 ammo, and 30+ round magazines (to make improvements in your collection of course).

Whether or not Obama actually intends on restricting gun rights, the price of these things on the secondary market is going to skyrocket as demand escalates and availability plummets in the few months following the election.

I voted today then went out an bought 2 AR's (One of which won't show up for 6 months or so ) and a bunch of 30 round magazines. I love this country!

Not panic buying per se, more like accelerated buying of things that I planned to purchase over the next couple of years anyway, but am concerned may not be available on my original time scale. Had to delay a couple of other purchases though.

- pod

 

[leviathan]

Obama's government health insurance law is the end of limited government. Apparently, the government can coerce you to do anything it wants based on the right to levy taxes. That is exactly the opposite of the liberty our republic was created to protect.

They also take taxes away for a bunch of other mandatory things, schools, public roads, fire+police, etc etc....so basically you're saying taxation in general is taking away your liberties? Time to get into the 20th century, wait, 21st century. Every civilized nation in the western world protects the basic health of its citizens. If you don't agree with that concept then that's fine I guess, but the majority of Americans seem to want their tax dollars spent on health care. Doesn't it embarrass you that the US has some of the worst health markers in the developed world?

Obama fundamentally disagrees with liberty. He does not believe you are entitled to the fruits of your labor. There is no freedom if you aren't even free to use your labor to meet your own goals.

Oh, I didn't realize he had a 100% tax rate, which would be taking away the fruits of your labor. I thoguht he was saying you aren't entitled to more like 30% of the fruits of your labor, and even that percent comes back to you in government spending (although obviously much less so than a middle class person). So that's a bit of a stretch to say he 'disagrees with liberty' because he wants to tax your income a bit more. Or because he wants to invest that tax money into something that the majority of Americans (you not included) want. I would say he's against liberty if he took all your tax money and spent it on stuff that he didn't get voted in for. Or I would say he's against liberty if his social and domestic policies are more in line with the Republican party who want to control everything you do.

What is civil recognition (not a right by the way) of gay marriage when those gay people can have their labor stolen and redistributed? I'm all for recognizing gay marriages, it's just less important than allowing those couples and everyone else to be free.

It's not a right of people to get married in the US? The rest of your comment is just more hyperbole. Some people would actually be pretty offended telling them you're a slave (like i dont know, real slaves?) because someone wants to make you pay more taxes (assuming you make >500k, otherwise isn't the middle class getting a tax cut? http://www.barackobama.com/tax-calculator/) . And isnt the 'tax hike' really to actually make you pay the same tax as the middle class by ending the Bush tax cuts? That hardly seems unfair.

 

[Perrotfish]

blah blah. Obama is not my president.

Between 2008-2012, the government has taken over student loans. DIRECT LOANS, they call it owns all of our debt for medical school. Obama got rid of the "middle man" banks who use to bankroll us our loans... and use to compete against each other. Those "middle men" use to give us a 0.25% break on our interest just for paying 20 payments in a row on time and other little incentives. We get none of that now that big brother DIRECT LOANS owns our debt and has not competitor.
.

The government already ran student loans. Before Obama got to office they guarenteed loans (meaning the government paid them if you didn't), set the rates of the loans, and dictated the ways that student loans were accounted for in banks budgets. The government's done that since the federally subsidized student loan program was established in 1965. Obama just asked the reasonble question, which economists had been asking for decades, of why it was necessary to give the banks a portion of the profits from this transaction considering that they took literally no risks.

 

[leviathan]

What else? Obamacare. The trojan horse to get a full scale government take over of health care down the road. That is the end game of Obamacare, health care provided solely by the US government. Everybody will have medicaid, private practice will be over, we will all be hospital employees. This doesn't sound great to me.
.

More misunderstanding and fear mongering. National healthcare systems don't make physicians "hospital employees". Well, some people do work under alternate payment plans under hospital authorities. Most people are still independent and bill fee-for-service.
Physicians still have private for-profit practices. Also the system is far more efficient and allows more of your dollars to go directly to health care and not to bloated administrators and middle-men. We do have NPs and PAs in Canada too, so that is also incorrect.

All that said, the sad reality is that our reimbursements are going to go down because of the rapidly rising costs of health care, and it's going to happen whether you're in a purely private or public system. Either that or insurance companies will have to start charging higher premiums, or in public systems they will have to continue to raise taxes. People will refuse to pay more and they'll instead start utilizing more midlevels who will do it for cheaper whether it's the gov't or insurance companies. The only way we are going to maintain our current salaries is to fight the inefficiencies in the system to get our health care dollars to go further.

 

[countingdays]

Oh, I didn't realize he had a 100% tax rate, which would be taking away the fruits of your labor. I thoguht he was saying you aren't entitled to more like 30% of the fruits of your labor, and even that percent comes back to you in government spending (although obviously much less so than a middle class person). So that's a bit of a stretch to say he 'disagrees with liberty' because he wants to tax your income a bit more. Or because he wants to invest that tax money into something that the majority of Americans (you not included) want. I would say he's against liberty if he took all your tax money and spent it on stuff that he didn't get voted in for. Or I would say he's against liberty if his social and domestic policies are more in line with the Republican party who want to control everything you do.

So Obama wants to tax at 39.6%+payroll taxes. That's 12-15 years of your life's labor that he wants to take. If you somehow manage to save and invest despite that theft, he wants to tax your dividends at 39 percent PLUS a 3.8% healthcare surcharge. Why even bother saving? They don't reimburse your loses, just steal your gains. It's lose-lose. And if after all that you manage to save money to pass on to your kids, he wants to take 45% of that.

All of that would be ok if it cost that much money to provide appropriate government services, but that money isn't going to minimal services or research or infrastructure. It's largely going to handouts and maintenance on the handout-based debt. It isn't being invested in growth that will benefit future generations. It is going to bailout failed businesses, to give handout/bribes to democrats' voters, to bailout bloated union pensions, and to pay for an absurdly oversized military (Obama can be better than Romney on one point).

Saying most Americans support government healthcare expenditures is probably false and meaningless even if it's true. People will support any expenditures if they don't have to pay themselves, and most people don't significantly contribute to the funding the government. Ask people how much money out of their own pockets they would like to give to provide health insurance for other people and you might get a better idea of how people really feel. Also ask if it would be more appropriate to provide charitable giving voluntarily to charitable organizations vs having it taken with the threat of imprisonment if you refuse by the federal government. Who the hell is Obama to say that he'll spend our money better than we would?

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

Prepare for a new day, and the end of a failed era. President Romney. Talk is cheap and we have done a lot of it so far, see you guys at 10PM eastern tomorrow when we will call it for our new president.

 

[periopdoc]

Obama 297 - Romney 241

- pod

 

[pgg]

those is swing state:vote romney...

those in every other state: raise GJ awareness!

Agree! I would have voted for Gary Johnson if I wasn't voting absentee in a swing state.

I voted today then went out an bought 2 AR's (One of which won't show up for 6 months or so ) and a bunch of 30 round magazines. I love this country!

Not panic buying per se, more like accelerated buying of things that I planned to purchase over the next couple of years anyway, but am concerned may not be available on my original time scale. Had to delay a couple of other purchases though.

Oooh! What'd you get?


I just bought one of these to go with one of these (still in form 4 purgatory). I actually think my next gun will be a nice 22 rifle. I've got a so-so 10/22 but it's not very accurate even with good ammo.


I haven't seen anywhere near the scarcity and buying panic compared to 2008, though I guess it could start tomorrow. Just about everything's in stock somewhere. Although Obama's made his desire for another AWB clear I don't think there's a plausible path from A to B in the next 2-4 years.

I am disappointed that the hype/fear and price runup over registered receivers / DIAS has continued unabated though. It's ridiculous. $20K+ for a chunk of aluminum with the right numbers and a pony engraved on it.

 

[leviathan]

All of that would be ok if it cost that much money to provide appropriate government services, but that money isn't going to minimal services or research or infrastructure. It's largely going to handouts and maintenance on the handout-based debt. It isn't being invested in growth that will benefit future wenerations. It is going to bailout failed businesses, to give handout/bribes to democrats' voters, to bailout bloated union pensions, and to pay for an absurdly oversized military (Obama can be better than Romney on one point).

I am against bailouts and agree with you 100%. I don't know enough about where the money is allegedly going. I'm also against handouts and welfare for able-bodied people. If they want welfare we can find a job for them cleaning up the streets or doing whatever, as long as they're out there and the money isnt just being wasted.

I would like to see evidence about where the 39% is going and if it truly is going to handouts as you say then I'd be against it. If that is however how much it costs to finance health insurance for everyone then I'm okay with that (personally).

Saying most Americans support government healthcare expenditures is probably false and meaningless even if it's true. People will support any expenditures if they don't have to pay themselves, and most people don't significantly contribute to the funding the government. Ask people how much money out of their own pockets they would like to give to provide health insurance for other people and you might get a better idea of how people really feel. Also ask if it would be more appropriate to provide charitable giving voluntarily to charitable organizations vs having it taken with the threat of imprisonment if you refuse by the federal government. Who the hell is Obama to say that he'll spend our money better than we would?

There's absolutely no way charity could ever finance a health care system. If you want to argue that, why not get rid of our public education system too and social security and all the other social services and let people donate from charity? I think the answer is we know if you want a prosperous nation we do a much better job working together than as individuals. Put another way, I feel I can make a much greater impact if I donate money through my taxes than donate it individually. Like it or not, America is a socialist country and has been for a long time. It's just a question of how much more socialist they will become with time.

Having good health is important for a prosperous country. And while people have differing opinions on whether health care is a human right, that is how I and many others feel. If the majority of Americans agree with that, then they will vote in the president that supports this idea too. While 47% of americans might be taking 'handouts', 47% isnt enough to elect a president so I'm assuming there are at least some others out there who are willing to shell out more of their money to help others. If not, then I guess we will see Romney as president tomorrow.

The interesting thing is that so many Republicans are devout Christians, but there's few people as socialist as Jesus Christ is/was.

 

[ger8]

Obama 303 and Romney 235.