Well we are almost there. For some people this is great news. For a fluctuating majority though it is a reckless experiment and moving away from a system that has worked brilliantly for centuries and decades.

This thread is dedicated to those who wish to protect the founding model of democracy and also to those who wish to take a majority and with it change the nation into a more european style social system.



I'll start. I'm against government invading every possible corner of our life with endless laws and regulations to force us to be what they consider to be correct.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/11233-cbo-obamacare-will-cause-millions-to-lose-insurance-double-cost






[Edited on March 21, 2012 at 12:04 PM. Reason : thanks qntmfred you are very good at grammar. i appreciate your help]

3/21/2012 11:55:50 AM

Quote :

"WHO IS GOAL"

3/21/2012 11:58:01 AM

Which brain tumor composed this, the one that comprises the majority of your neural tissue, or the one growing on that?

3/21/2012 12:00:24 PM

hey i gave up my right to liberty but at least i know i'm a college aged badass who knows how to quickly spot grammar errors and mock anybody who doesn't read the same google news as me




[Edited on March 21, 2012 at 12:07 PM. Reason : ,]

3/21/2012 12:00:48 PM

Way to fall for bottom-of-the-barrel GOP propaganda. Even the National Review wont get behind such obvious misinformation:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293932/no-obamacare-s-costs-didn-t-double-patrick-brennan?toggle=y

Quote :

"No, Obamacare’s Costs Didn’t Double Much has been made recently, on NRO as elsewhere, about the supposedly skyrocketing cost of Obamacare. The House Republican Policy Committee, for instance, put out a statement claiming that “the new CBO projection estimates that the law will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years — well above the $940 billion Democrats originally claimed.” This claim, that the CBO’s 2012 estimate suggests Obamacare will cost twice as much as originally projected when the bill was passed in 2010, has been widely trumpeted, by some rather doggedly, as another Obamacare failure, but unfortunately, it’s entirely dishonest accounting, as a range of liberal bloggers have pointed out. Here’s why: The gross costs of Obamacare’s insurance coverage in the CBO’s 2010–2019 estimate were indeed $940 billion (table 2, page 2, here). The updated estimate covers the years 2012–2022, in which the gross costs will be $1.76 trillion, which is, yes, almost double the other number (table 2, here). But these numbers aren’t remotely comparable. They cover similar amounts of time (10 years and 11 years), but different years, so the outlays should be different. Almost the entire difference in the two numbers is due to the fact that the new assessment includes 2020, 2021, and 2022, years of full implementation of coverage provisions, while excluding 2010 and 2011, during which basically no money was spent on the coverage provisions. Pretending that the $940 billion number has been revised to $1.76 trillion is like comparing Tom Brady’s first through eighth seasons in the NFL with his third through eleventh (though probably only Paul Krugman thinks of government spending as a touchdown pass). Gross costs in each year haven’t really changed — e.g., in 2019, the old, 2010 estimate predicted a gross cost of $216 billion, the new estimate is $224 billion (the net costs of coverage have consistently decreased from the old estimate to the new — in 2019, say, from $175 billion to $149 billion). Another more accurate comparison would be the original projection for costs from 2012–2019, and the updated projection for those years: In 2010, the CBO projected it would be $933 billion; now it’s expected to be $1.011 trillion. Not exactly a doubling in cost. (Plus, as noted, net costs are actually lower over that time.) None of this, of course, indicates that Obamacare is anything less than the Brobdingnagian bureaucracy we’ve always known it to be. And there was indeed plenty of fishy accounting in the bill (the late CLASS Act being a perfect example). But the CBO’s new projections don’t substantially alter the picture we got in 2010, and it’s utterly dishonest to claim otherwise. Of course, in 2010, many opponents of the bill noted that the supposed ten-year gross costs of the plan reflected only six years of coverage costs from full implementation — but the CBO does ten-year economic and fiscal projections, and therefore in their first estimate was only going to include the years through 2019. But their annual projections for each year of full implementation were accurate. Now, we see the costs of Obamacare through 2022, and they’re not different from what we expected they would be in 2010. The bill’s gross costs will be huge; ten years of full implementation, from, say, 2015–2025, will cost more than $2 trillion, since the bill ticks in at $250+ billion per year after 2021. This fact was perfectly evident in the 2010 estimate, which projected similar annual costs for years of full implementation, but it is worth noting that, in this sense, 2012–2022 is a closer approximation of the full size (though not net cost) of Obamacare than 2010–2019 and at $1.7 trillion, still isn’t even big enough."

You're seriously a massive, massive sap, almost as bad as GeniuSxBoy. I heard the same garbage on Hannity yesterday but I didn't think anyone who actually listened to him who had the internet.



[Edited on March 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2012 12:21:33 PM

Oh, and for the liberals, here's a take from Krugman, someone who isn't afraid to mince words when calling out GOP propagandists for what they are:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/how-bad-the-debate-is/

Quote :

"Many pundits still like to pretend that we’re having something resembling a rational national debate, with members of both parties saying reasonable things given their views about how policy works. And when you find a politician saying something not at all reasonable, there’s a lot of false equivalence — surely both sides do it, even if you don’t have any, you know, actual examples from one side. Then you encounter something like this: the CBO puts out its latest update (pdf) on the cost of the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act, and the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee puts out this statement: House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price, M.D. (R-GA) issued the following statement regarding the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) updated cost estimate of the president’s health care law. The new CBO projection estimates that the law will cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years – well above the $940 billion Democrats originally claimed. It’s not just that all of this comes from moving the window — because the Act doesn’t take effect until 2014, the 10-year cost as measured from 2012 is higher than measured from 2010 (and no, this doesn’t mean that the original claims of deficit reduction were cooked; see Ezra.) It’s the fact that the CBO report says this: CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period And where does this statement that the estimated costs have fallen, not risen, appear? On the very first page of the report. Tell me that this is a rational, honest debate. Or if you claim that everyone does it, find me a senior Democrat — not some random pundit or backbencher — making an equivalent howler."

3/21/2012 12:27:03 PM

Quote :

"http://www.thenewamerican.com"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

Quote :

"The organization owns American Opinion Publishing, which publishes the journal The New American."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talkin%27_John_Birch_Paranoid_Blues

3/21/2012 2:40:32 PM

^^ & ^^^

Quote :

"Do not consecutively reply to a topic - If you are within the alloted timespan for editing a message that no one has replied to and you think of something to add, EDIT the message. DO NOT REPLY AGAIN. Constant abuse of this will not be tolerated."

3/21/2012 8:11:32 PM

Is this kinda like the Confederate States of America? If so, I'm in.

3/21/2012 10:22:01 PM

double-posting? In MY misinformation thread?

3/22/2012 8:55:38 AM

There are people who condone rape and shrug off child-slaughter, who laugh at tsunamis, who could care less about people living in squalid conditions and who make fun of the plight of the third world as people living in "mud huts"

Be careful, they will shed a tear if you double post on their web forum

3/22/2012 9:02:05 AM

NOW I WANNA SEE YA DOUBLE POST IT

LIKE THIS

3/22/2012 9:02:55 AM

I am posting in this thread because I saw a reference to Paul Krugman, and I just found out that much of his new textbook of intro. Economics is available for a free preview, and the guy doesn't sound like the socialist nutcase the atavist teabaggers like to paint him as: http://www.worthpublishers.com/Catalog/Product.aspx?title=economics-thirdedition-krugman&tab=about&feature=overview&cparam1=ektron&contentid=6089

4/30/2012 6:33:14 AM

Quote :

"isn't afraid to mince words"

That means the opposite of how you are using it.

4/30/2012 7:27:03 AM

Isn't that when you move slowly and daintily while carefully enunciating (i.e. mincing) those words?

Basically Str8Foolish is saying Krugman is okay with being called a fag while taking the Rethugnican brutes to task

4/30/2012 1:52:03 PM

Quote :

"founding model of democracy"

I stopped reading right there.




Article 3, Section 4 of "The UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION"

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.





READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION.



[Edited on April 30, 2012 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/30/2012 1:53:31 PM

Quote :

""

I like that the painter has Obama pointing at the fire like we are too retarded to understand his intention without it.

4/30/2012 2:34:35 PM

^^The hurr is strong with this one: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic
Under definition-group 1

Quote :

"a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>"

"democracy" is listed as the first synonym: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
Under definition-group 1

Quote :

"a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

"republic" is also listed as the first synonym of "democracy"; this is based on common usage, even though occasionally non-democratic systems can be called "republics" and some (usually small) democracies are direct rather than republican

basically they're two terms usually describing different aspects of the same political system, and it's reasonable to presume that, just as the U.S. Constitution describes a federal democratic republic, the Founders meant for the states to not merely have any old kind of republic, but a democratic republic

What kind of anti-liberal "republic, not a democracy" would you want for the states?

4/30/2012 2:51:23 PM

If three of us are on an island, two of us beat you into submission and enslave you, and going forward we will have "elections" (the rules of which are decided by us), that's democracy.

Let me guess. "It's not perfect, but it's the best we have". What a crock of shit.

[Edited on April 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM. Reason : ]

4/30/2012 3:49:36 PM

Why did you airquotes "elections"?

4/30/2012 4:33:34 PM

Because a rigged election isn't really an election but you can't stop people from calling it an "election"

4/30/2012 4:35:17 PM

He didn't say the 3-person island election was rigged though. Do you just automatically assume all elections are rigged? I don't think that was what he was implying.

I think that he was implying that there's some pure archetypal form of election untarnished by the enforcement of law. But I'll let him reply to the question I directly asked him.

4/30/2012 4:55:50 PM

Quote :

"He didn't say the 3-person island election was rigged though. "

three of us are on an island, two of us beat you into submission and enslave you.


If that's not rigging, then I don't know what is.

4/30/2012 5:01:02 PM

Quote :

"He didn't say the 3-person island election was rigged though. Do you just automatically assume all elections are rigged? I don't think that was what he was implying. I think that he was implying that there's some pure archetypal form of election untarnished by the enforcement of law. But I'll let him reply to the question I directly asked him."

I didn't have to say it. Based on the fact that the third person is being physically forced into association with the first and second, it's safe to say that the elections (whatever form they take) will not be in the third person's best interests.

4/30/2012 5:22:00 PM

A)How do we know it won't be in their best interests? Since you believe all laws are based on coercion currently, are you saying that no law is for anyone's best interest?

B)Is being "coerced" by law the same thing as being rigged? I thought you and gboy were making different points. His: elections are a sham because the establishment inerrantly fixes them. You: elections are a illusion because laws are defintionally coercive.

He's being paranoid, you're being an idealist. Or so I thought.

4/30/2012 7:05:39 PM

Laws against force or fraud are in everyone's best interest and 90+% tend to agree with them.

4/30/2012 7:21:26 PM

true democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner

4/30/2012 9:17:44 PM

Or two sheep and a wolf deciding on what to have for dinner?

Either way, the wolf wins.

5/1/2012 12:26:08 AM

Quote :

" In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day." On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America, our Constitution, and our founding values. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/01/presidential-proclamation-loyalty-day-2012

5/1/2012 7:13:50 PM

That makes me

5/1/2012 7:18:24 PM

Quote :

"Why did you airquotes "elections"?"

Those weren't airquotes

5/1/2012 7:30:33 PM

Let us move forward, comrade.

5/2/2012 12:05:48 PM

This is such fucking bullshit. We are nowhere near socialism. You fucking people have to give in just a little bit and you are off crying like someone stoll your ice cream.

Have none of you ever met with a European before and had good ol conversation about politics?

Let's just ignore the fact that those constitution documents you are holding up so high led to a devastating Civil War.


[Edited on May 2, 2012 at 1:13 PM. Reason : j]

5/2/2012 1:07:45 PM