lostfan

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 02:16 PM) And of course, that's just outright dismissed by people other then "nutcase right wing wackjobs". I skimmed over it and the conclusion I drew was "this is not enough."

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:43 AM) Of course. And the 'prestige', family honor, all that crap. He took his brother's seat, to keep it in the family. Probably why they wanted to change the law again so they could appoint another Kennedy to the spot when he died, keep the legacy going. And sure teddy and family had money before that, but trust me, him being a Senator didn't hurt their finances any. The Kennedy brothers were all trust fund babies (JFK didn't even take a salary for being president, he donated it all to charity). He really didn't need the 150k a year or whatever it is senators make nowadays, and he probably could've done better than that if he wanted to without the Senate.

The House GOP did put out a bill. I didn't get to read the whole thing but I saw a lot of tax cuts/credits etc.

QUOTE (G&T @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) Well the thread title is clearly inaccurate. I don't see the problem. Every ad in every market is designed to appeal to those in the market. Hell, ads in NY City will look different than those in upstate NY. Why take a completely different picture when the outcome will be the same? Is it that hard to just take a new picture with 3 white people in it?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 10:54 AM) WHich we don't have a link for? If you were citing rigorous studies that showed the opposite, Balta or others would have been screaming for links by now. They've been posted before FWIW.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 10:33 AM) LOL. I just said which one. I know. I was talking about what you said right after it. Mainly I'm just f***ing with you.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 10:28 AM) House Bill 3200. I also like the fact that it keeps being thrown around that "there's no bill". It makes for great political theatre. People know what these Congresspukes (and Obama) are up to, and they don't like it. There are bills, I'm asking which one you're talking about?

Which bill kap... there's like 5, none of which Obama has endorsed.

I don't know who did either. Y2HH said the deficit increased under Clinton when it didn't, but I think that's about it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 08:03 AM) In an interview on NPR this morning, Michael Steele revealed that he does not know what the word "nuanced" means. Also, he talked out of both sides of his ass the entire time. "Government health care is awful! It'll be the death of us all!" "They want to raid Medicare! It's important to have that last line of health coverage for seniors!" "We can't have government interfering with health care!" "Insurance companies need more regulation!" I really think that conservatives as a whole (the everyday rank and file who listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin-listening, Joe the Plumber type people and not necessarily GOP leadership, Steele notwithstanding) don't really know or care about the concept of nuance. They see the world as binary. It's one or the other. Either you support terrorism or you don't. "You're either with us or against us." Logically, if you support terrorism, you need to be arrested/deported/executed/invaded/etc. You're either racist or you're not. The government is bad at everything and the market is always better in every circumstance. People like me are the opposite which is why I run into walls in arguments a lot. I see things in a vacuum and everything as a result of some other circumstance or set of circumstances. Things may be interconnected, or they may not be. To me, falling on "this or that" without knowing all the details is cutting corners. This is why I can tell someone the difference between, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and pre-2001 Afghanistan. It also helps avoid making false equivalencies (e.g., Jeremiah Wright and the KKK).

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 09:52 AM) Yeah, I'm not really against tort reform. At all. It's one of those things I just don't care that much about. I just don't like it being pointed to as the end all be all in the debate. This is pretty much the only solution I've been seen getting presented by town hall protesters when they are asked. I really don't have any idea what they want.

I'm really not sure why I clicked this thread because I already know everything that's going to be said by heart.

WTF

I didn't know playgirl had a mostly homosexual readership either.

Holy s*** at some of the posts I just read.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 07:02 PM) And the DEM leadership won't pass any kind of healthcare legislation that caps jury awards thanks to their trial lawyer donors. GOP leadership has proposed changes, but since they all contain tort reform in some fashion, they get dismissed outright by the left. A couple of months ago Obama told the GOP leadership he was open to tort reform, and he asked what they would give him in return if he put it in the bill. He got silence for an answer. That silence actually says a lot.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 06:32 PM) She got full of herself and went whackjob pretty quickly IMO. She's been roundly ignored and marginalized for quite a while. Couple years or so I think. Pretty much.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 06:08 PM) His plan would have failed. The globalist theory failed. The US has a massive trade deficit and has actually lost jobs over a decade. Eh that's another issue entirely. I was just talking about gov't spending and tax policy. Global free trade and no tariffs is more of a conservative thing though, not that it's a pet issue of theirs since some Dems like it too but the whole idea of limited intervention is a conservative one.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 06:02 PM) Well...yes and no. Clinton was on his way, but ran out of time in office. Clinton did balance the budget -- but our deficit rose under his administration, too, and although he left with surplus, we never use it to pay back debt...we just re-increased spending. IIRC, Clinton had a plan that would've eliminated all of our debt by 2012, and I'm almost 100% sure he left office with a decent surplus that he built up. Didn't he inherit a deficit? I'm not looking at a graph right now so I don't know, but I know Reagan was all about deficits. Gore wanted to follow up with this in the 2000 campaign, so did Bush but he wanted to cut the hell out of taxes the whole time he was in office which really kind of blunted it. Then that all went to s*** when he invaded Iraq.

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 05:56 PM) Cutting taxes without reducing spending increases the deficit. Ding ding ding, we have a winner. It might not happen right away but it will happen. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 05:58 PM) While the idea is to increase spending and run deficits if necessary during bad times, you are supposed to pay it back and run surplus during good times -- something we don't do. Overhauling healthcare will not save this government/country from bankruptcy, not on the path of spending we are on -- and doing nothing will not save it either. You're damned if you do... Thanks for finishing it for me. We (under Clinton and the GOP-controlled, budget-conscious Congress) did it in the 90s, in the 2000s the Republicans stopped caring about it for some reason.

Weren't all those countries in debt to the United States at one point?

This has to be one of the longest-running internet memes.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 03:52 PM) LMAO. This thread is just irrelevant now. lol. It was actually a good discussion. I happen to like the hijacking it took. Those documentary series have lots of colors and sharp detail and they look amazing in HD.

That's a pretty authentic mispronunciation actually.

So since you guys are on the subject, earlier today I was looking at Planet Earth on Blu-Ray and wondering if I should get it - I was on the fence but now I think I'll do it. Anyone watched The Universe? I'm really into that kind of stuff.