Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Just the Two of Them

As I write, Santorum is holding a press conference to drop out.

I do like the phrase, nominee presumptive, though.

I guess that leaves just the two of them.

Hmmm, "Barack vs. Mitt." Sounds like a hotly contested school committee race in Belgrade.

I's just wondering... What did I have to do with picking the candidates? Who picked Mitt? I can't see how it could have been me. How is it that the common folk picks who gets to run for pres?

out of how many billions of you guys in the US and thats all you can come up with.Seriously steven harper is a better candidate and he is an idiot
Cake walk for obama

One must remember, it is the "system" that is the problem. When you have a primary system in place to elect a Presidential candidate that is a marathon race from beginning to end requiring enormous sums of money to continue, then it becomes basically "survival of the fittest" NOT the best candidate. As a result, this eliminates the vast majority of potentially good people who, despite their credentials, would have no chance whatsoever of securing the massive funds necessary to even start the process.

When Obama ran in the primary before the last election it was essentially TWO years from the time he started to the day he took office. He raised over $600 million dollars and McCain over $400 million(the first Billion dollar Presidency)!

Of course, once elected, there are no "strings attached" to the securing of those funds, yeah right! This is why, with very few exceptions, all these candidates still are or have been involved at some point or another in the Washington "inner circle" and are more often than not very rich themselves with the necessary political connections.

Should I get my popcorn ready?

I like puppies.

And turtles.

Okay, not really. I really don't care for turtles. Except the carmel-nut things.

Always an interesting day when Santorum drops out.

I wish him a frothy adieu.

WARNING:
*********************************
This thread is political in nature. Many people will become offended by some comment, some viewpoint, or just because they want to. Most political threads get way out of hand. Be nice!
*********************************

My take. Obama is terrible. Worse than anyone else? Well, that is debatable since many previous presidents were bad for different reasons. The only way that I will ever feel really good about a candidate or president is when they start working for the people, and not for a select few constituents, or to be able to take vacation number 27 on taxpayer dollars, or to go puff out their chest to other countries, or to just line their friends' wallets with earmarks or bailouts. The political scene in the US, especially the higher up you go, has been so corrupt for so long that I can't see how any potential president could turn this ship around.

As for who is going to win the election, despite the terrible "approval" ratings (again, not just with our current president), it will basically come down to the people that just don't care to vote. They are sick of things to a point that they don't even want to participate. They are the key mass of citizens (and non-citizens) that will once again give us a 2-term president.

From a statistics perspective, I was told that only one time in history was a president up for reelection and he didn't win.

The last go around, people reelected someone that was said to be a destroyer of other countries. This time around, we will reelect someone who is a destroyer of this one.

Fire away folks. Just keep things civil.

Bazinga award for JP.

I'm staying out of this.

All government officials should work for minimum wage!

That should get rid of the majority of them.

It's unlikely any of the bums are doing it for the money.

Hey! I refuse to get pissed at you because you've already shown yourself to be a nice, reasonable guy! So there!

I think it would help to eventually weed out all but those that really want to be there. But, I could be wrong, I've been wrong before.

Are we talking about your wall or politics?

LoL. I know almost nothing about politics, so it can't be the wall. (Of course, I couldn't be wrong about both, that would be unthinkable.)

Politics and religion: Poor topics for the net. I'm staying out! (Not that I won't read it)

Politics is not my thing. There are only 2 types of people I hate in this world. 1) Salesmen, 2) Politicians.

Only if its bacon flavoured.

Ozzie Guillen didn't get the memo.

The way I see most polticians these days is you end up having to choose the lesser of 2 evils and there is is usually a very fine line between the 2.

+1

Obama is cool ... he's a golfer. He has succeeded in his core policies. He has dismantled our manned space program, scattered the greatest scientific team since the Manhattan Project. Used the money we saved from that to buy cell phones for those who will not work for a living. He has stoked envy and covetousness, fragmented the body politic ... set black against white, women against men, those of modest means against the successful, union members against non-union workers, atheist against Christians and Jews. He has impoverished the nation, lowered our expectations so people will trade a policy which would create jobs for one which promises a food stamp future. His policies have squandered our wealth, disabled our economy with such debt that it is increasingly unlikely we'll be able to dig our way out.

He has turned against our friends and embraced our enemies. He has realized his father's dreams, the dreams of a Kenyan nationalist, Marxist ... a Mau Mau. Here's the joke ... he's the president of the nation he seeks to humble.

Or, people finding themselves voting against the one they like the least. I refuse to do either. But until we get back to a popular vote, it doesn't matter much anyway. Before my vote is even counted, the election is over.

Thank you, Jack.

And ... Obama has attempted to destroy the greatest health care system in the world, and if elected again, will do the same for our military.

His job is to end American "exceptionalism" and bring us low.

Bob- You and I are friends. Really. I LIKE you....I really do. But you started a political thread and now I'm just angry.

Let's take a look at Obama's tax policies, especially his "Buffett Rule." The intent is not to reduce the deficit but to establish "fairness."

The intent of the tax increase on the “rich” is not to raise money, but to inflict pain on that segment of society. Obama sees the “poor” as suffering, so he intends to equalize the “suffering.” The problem with this policy is that Obama increases the total quantum of suffering for society.

Instead of raising the lot of the poor, Obama seeks to diminish the “rich.” Instead of increasing the nation’s wealth, he seeks to increase the nation’s pain.

In other words, Obama uses the force of the State to inflict pain on one segment of society so they suffer their fair share.

Obama uses the force of the State to increase pain within the body politic.

He is a wrecker.

I goin out on limb here, seems you dont like obama

What do you think bush was doin.

I think Bush meant well. He made some big mistakes, no question.

I didn't vote for Bush, the first time around. I'd vote for him if he were running against Obama.

I'll take Romney. I liked Ramblers.

This is not a true statement... The U.S. spends the most in the world on health care, and by far does not have the best results from the money spent... I am working on a masters in public policy, and have done a considerable amount of studying/reading on this specific topic..

Your statement is simply just not true, we do/did not have the best health care system in the world. We had one which, if you had a wonderful health care policy, or were rich you were/are set. However, if you happend to be poor.. well you were shit out of luck especially if you had/have a chronic medical problem... There was one book that i read (i am sorry i do not remember the title or author, if i remember i will get it for you), in it there was a young woman 30 years old, who had lupus disease... She had a Bachelors degree and worked part time for a hospital... Long story short.. She died because she could not get treatment for her desease... How on earth would this happen if we have/had the "greatest health care system in the world"???

Now, granted.. i am going to assume that i have done much more reading/writing on this specific topic than yourself, so please do not take this personal... There are hundreds of examples such as the one above that proves my point....

If you would like to read about our "greatest health care system in the world" please read this book below

This is Paul Starr's dissertation...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Transfo...1180&sr=8-2

Here is another good book, MUCH shorter than the Starr book, this book directly compares the U.S. health care system to others by first hand accounts.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Healing-Americ...1241&sr=1-1


It seems like you have a very decided opinion about Obama.. Which is fine, i am glad you have an opinion, but if you are going to make specific accusations, please do some reading to be able to defend your position.

If you have examples that are counter to mine, i would be more than happy to see them.

Just for good measure, i agree with this post to a certain degree. My undergraduate degree is in economics. the top 50% of the population supports the entire tax base. The bottom 50% of the population pay's 0 tax, they get all of their money back when they file for a refund.... IF 100% of the population helped to support the public goods that we all consume, then our federal budget would be in a much better place than it currently is....

I do not necessarily agree with the "Buffet" rule myself; but possibly for different reasons... Fundamentally, i think that everyone should pay at least something to help pay for the public goods that that are being consumed.

One prime example of public goods that EVERYONE consumes, would be the roads in the U.S. The infrastructure in the U.S. has received a D grade for the last 10 years, due to the poor maintenance habits that we have engaged in for a long time now.

I am not familiar with Starr's book, the Social Transformation of American Medicine. Social Transformation ... that's the problem. We have a capitalistic system. Free enterprise. Free.

I am not aware of anyone who has died because they have been denied medical care in this country. Most Americans have health care. After 65 we have Medicare. Those without have Medicaid. Obama has taken a HALF TRILLION DOLLARS from the Medicare system and transferred it to Medicaid. He has gutted Medicare.

The solution to the problem of uninsured American citizens is not to destroy our health care system. Certainly, as Obama's policies stabilize the real unemployment rate at about 17% (U6), more and more workers will lose their health insurance.

The failure of Obama's economic policies are the great driver for Obamacare. One failure will lead to another.

There is a lot of waste in our system. Doctors practice liability protective medicine, ordering every test to avoid legal liability in the event of a lawsuit. Having litigated such suits, I know the truth of this. However, contrary to what Obama has told us, doctors do not perform unnecessary amputations just to make a dime.

If you socialize health care, you have socialized the economy at the cost of liberty. Ultimately, you'd end up with a health care system which operates with all the grace and efficiency of any governmental agency, that is to say, a lousy health care system for all, and a loss of our liberty.

I'm sorry, Mark. I was bored and I knew it'd give me lots of reading material by day's end.

Really, it's Pavlovian here. No, it's more like a train schedule, not that predicatability is always a bad thing.

It takes so much effort to get something constructive going. Sometimes it's easier to pull the fire alarm and run away than it is to actually nurture a conflagration.

You know that house on the next street from where you grew up? Ya, the brown two-story with the nasty and crazy yard dog. Admit it! Sometimes you did run a stick along the chain link fence. I'm guilty, but I can't promise that I'll reform without the proper rehabilitation.

Next thought: a single world religion, or else?

Sorry, sorry.

edit: nah. I'm not doing it.

Yeah. Actually, surprisingly easy to ignore something that egregiously over the top. I think he left the tsunami and subsequent Japanese nuclear plant meltdown off the list.

Please, unenlightened ones, gather around and lend an ear while I share my deeply-researched wisdom with you. I will hit you with a wall of text so overwhelming that your brain will cower in its presence!

I'm sorry 2x6spds, but have you heard the expression.. Don't judge a book by its cover...... (i had to, i'm sure you will understand)



Have you ever looked at the requirements to get medicaid? Not everyone that is "poor" qualifies.. In my earlier example the young lady was working, and made to much money to qualify for medicaid. In Texas (where i live) medicaid worded to pretty much only cover single mothers that are unemployed. If your a single male, there is pretty much no way you could get medicaid regardless of income...



In the T.R Reid book, Reid actually does a decent job at explaining other health care structures.. The one that i think works the best is the bismarck model. The reasoning behind this model is to keep the general population happy, it was not hatched though the alturism of Otto von Bismarck...

http://healthmatters4.blogspot.com/2011/01/bismarck-model.html

And, yes it does bug the heck out of me that the news media only reports the U3 number... Even at though, most of the commentators have no idea what is driving the U3 number....



Starr's book does a good job at explaining how this came to fruition. Reid's book discusses how other models handle this, and why other countries do not have the financial inefficiencies that the U.S. has.




This is not true, look at Germany, france, Switzerland, Japan, Thailand.... They all use a form of the Bismarck model.. Under the bismarck model, people still have a choice as to who they get health insurance from. By law, all health insurance companies are nonprofit organizations.. i think you should get the T. R. Reid book. I think you would enjoy the read.


I am not saying that Obama care is the best solution for us. Personally i would have liked to have seen the U.S. adopt the Bismarck model... But there would be so much propaganda about it being a socialist system... I feel that you are writing more from opinions than facts. Which is ok, but please keep an open mind to different options.


P.S. i am not a huge fan of politics talk outside of school, because it can go down hill very quickly.

You're doing a great job lifting this thread from a bash-fest [] into something that's educational, dakkon. (Well, potentially educational. We can choose to read your book suggestions or continue believing what we already believe….)

Thanks for your refreshing civil tone and your willingness to share your knowledge with those us brave enough to open this thread.

The European model is basically eating itself. You cannot continue to spend more than you bring in without collapsing the system. When you have more people on the cart than are pulling the cart, at some point, the system will break down. Look at Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, the canaries ...

The NHS works great in UK, if you want to die from thirst, unattended, surrounded by union employees who really care a lot. Hip replacement, no, you're too old. Expensive chemotherapy, the numbers just don't pencil out for you citizen.

The Euro socialist countries are not free. They are ruled by unelected bureaucrats. They do not have freedom of speech, they have been Shariaized ... freedom of speech means freedom from being offended by someone's speech. That is the opposite of how we figure it. Of course the Ezra Levant fiasco shows that you have some bureaucrats with totalitarian inclinations up in the frozen north.

I like Harper though.

There are more social issues going on than just the health care, i am limiting my replies to health care.. Not to other social issues that are burdoning these economies (that is an entirely different discussion)... I agree when you are spending more than you are taking in, you are in trouble... BTW the U.S. is doing this... our dept is more than our GDP....

pmbuko, i am a HORRIBLE teacher.... However, i do like shooting the breeze , if you happen to learn something along the way.. well it's not my fault

Well said dakkon. Yes, there are other issues, and we share them. We're a bit luckier. We have approximately 20 million (at least) illegal alien residents from Latin America. Europe threw its doors open to North African and Middle Eastern immigrants. They sure loaded the cart. Heavy on the dole, heavy on the health care, heavy on the multiple wives, heavy on the hate, light on the work. Brilliant.

Sort of skews the model. Those technocrats who think they know it all, and can predict the future forget that predictions are difficult, especially when they're about the future.

If you look at Europe's population growth rate, you will understand why they are immigrant friendly now... again, there are other matters at play here, and it is not as simple as it may appear at first glance.

Many of the illegal immigrants that we have in the U.S. are more than happy to do the jobs that WE dont want to do (there have been many academic studies that have proven that crime is a very small portion of the immigration issue, most people just want to be able to provide for their families). Would you or anyone in your family be willing to go pick lettuce for 12 hours a day, for a labor rate at or below minimum wage? I don't think i would, nor would anyone in my family... Conversely, would you be willing to pay 20$ for a head of lettuce, it would cost at WHOLE lot more if farmers had to pay labor rates that Americans would want to do the job. The cost you pay at the store, in most cases is a direct function of labor rates... Popular media has demonized immigrants of all kinds... Do you remember last summer when GA and Alabama "got tough on immigration"... Do you remember the fruit and vegetables in the farmers fields rotted last summer because no American wanted to go pick the food for the wage that the immigrants were willing to do the job? 9 times out of 10, the south american/mexican immigrant is not taking a job "away" from an american, they are willing to do a job that an american is not willing to do....

This topic is actually quite interesting from a cultural/sociological point of view... Today in America, we don't want immigrants, but we also don't want to do the jobs for as little compensation as the immigrants are willing to do them, but... We still want all of our products to be super cheap...

The rational player will see the fallacy in this though process....

You are correct. The average Euro birth rate is about 1.6. They will lose population. What that means to a socialist economy, is no new workers to support the lavish retirements of the previous generation and universal health care for all. According to B'at Yeor, the Euro elites decided the solution was to open immigration from North Africa. Those were supposed to be the workers who would support the aging Europeans population. It is not working out.

Our immigration policy is complex and de facto. Yes, we have jobs that our own population will not take. On the other hand, illegal workers depress wages, burden services, especially medical services. Southern California used to have the best hospital system in the world. Multiple trauma centers, helicopter ambulances. No longer. Now we see Emergency Rooms full of children of illegal aliens with runny noses. Our prison system is heavily burdened by illegal aliens as is our school system and every other social service.

Why is it that there is a sector of American society who would rather collect welfare than work menial jobs?

When you say we don't want immigrants, I don't think that is accurate. I understand why people would want to flee from the economic hardship of central American countries. But by entering the country illegally, they cut ahead of those who go through the lawful immigration process.

While our immigration laws are complex and require rationalization, the solution is not to ignore our borders, or the privileges and immunities which follow from citizenship rather than illegal residence.

Like any sovereign nation, we are entitled to borders.

By the way, let's just ignore exaggerations like $20 head lettuce prices. We had a Bracero program in the 50s and 60s. There are solutions which do not result in the US becoming the social service sump for all of Central America.

The 20$ may or may not be an exaggeration.. There is no counter factual to disprove this number..


So, how about that Romney.... He's sooo in touch with my middle class life style.. paying bills, buying my own groceries, not owning multiple homes. having to be concerned with my finances as to how i will retire....

Neither candidate is my "favoriate" both have things about them that i do not agree with... The whole selendera thing did not settle well with me at all, that was a Very poorly written contract in my opinion. I fail to understand why the tax payers would not get their money back first, or why the contract would be written in such a manner that they did not... This seems like a pretty big mistake to me.

By that logic, we should worry about $100 a head lettuce. In the meantime, our national debt is totally out of control. Though the Obama administration denies it, inflation is here and coming on strong.

As to a president, I don't need someone to sympathize for me. I want someone who adheres to the Constitutional limits of government and institutes policies of growth.

I don't want a government to take care of me. i want a government which will get out of the way of wealth creation and not engage in moronic investments in 'green energy.'

i agree with this...




But, the baby seals????

I love the baby seals too, and those nasty penguins as well

So much posting (mainly between 2 of us), but just a comment about the heathcare in the US. Yes, I've worked in the healthcare and medical industry, and yes, I have read about world wide healthcare options even as recently as 1 month ago...

One of the biggest issues with the healthcare system and healthcare costs has to do with the "freedoms" that are allowed in this country, and what people have come to feel "entitled" to or see the opportunity to "scam" someone else out of. By that I am getting at how much easier someone can turn their financial situation around by suing someone else. Legal fees alone. In 2008 (I couldn't pull last year's numbers easily), $55.6 Billion was spent on medial malpractice lawsuits and defense medicine. Those costs get spread out among everyone paying for medical services. Trust me, this is huge. I've worked for both the medical providers as well as the health care administrators (insurance companies) and you hear about how 1 lawsuit alone can send things into a state of panic, even for larger providers.

Throw into that mix the number of uninsured people in the US at 50.7 Million People as of September 2010 and how many of those people are effectively getting "free" (cost passed on to others) healthcare. It is no wonder that there is a push for a new healthcare program. I don't agree with the "plan" of the current law trying to be forced into place, but lets look at where to costs are.

We can keep following this trail back to unemployed people, increasing costs for consumables (food, gas, housing, etc) and more lower income families can't afford it, plus the estimated 11.2 Million illegal immigrants, 8 Million of which are also working here illegally (mot paying taxes, or for healthcare) thus increasing both the healthcare problem, but also the general taxation problem. I know that I would love to get paid cash and not pay taxes.

Anyway, I just wanted to offer some perspective to the healthcare cost issue. As for Obama's healthcare plan, I am all for helping out others, but when you have so many people here that aren't contributing to the payment or reduction of payment of things like taxes and healthcare because they are here illegally (when did people forget what "illegal" meant?) it makes it that much more expensive for those people that are trying to do things on the up and up, or were hit by the economic crash that started a couple of years ago. The problem is one political group thinks that these illegal people should be allowed to vote (representation WITHOUT taxation) and does whatever they can to make sure that they get as many of those 11.2 million votes that they can.

How about focusing on those of us that actually help to pay for the government. Oh wait, my voice is lost by the "special interest groups" that throw millions of dollars into politicians coffers... Ugh. Maybe I should move to France. I would still hate the government, the people could care less about me, but at least I could travel to other countries easier than I can travel to some other states.

You face barriers, other than distance, traveling to other states? Wha?

Is that Gumby's cousin?

I see resemblances to that cucumber guy on Veggie Tales.

I mean, I can be in multiple European countries in about the same distance and driving between a couple states in the U.S. Heck, France is smaller than the state of Texas...

Europe - USA Size Comparison Map

Just move to the New England area.

Nick, illegal immigrants do pay taxes.. They pretty much all pay sales tax, if we were truly worried about this "cost" issue, why not fund health care through sales tax, like they do in England? This ensures that EVERYONE will pay, even turists. Unless there is a VERY sizable black market, it is inevitable that you will get 100% participation in funding. The problem with this idea, is that it is a regressive tax...

There are also sizable numbers of illegal immigrants who have
social security numbers.



If the fundamental structure of our tax laws were changed. Then this financial incentive to come to the U.S. illegally could be diminished... if there was a 20-25% national sales tax, and citizens got a quarterly refund, depending on income... Well, if you wanted to come here illegally and pay through the nose for the cost of living.. Why not!?

But, i think we can agree that there will be not sweeping change in the Tax, laws.. Heck, congress hasn't even passed a freaking budget in the last what, 3 years?

Dakkon, a flat sales tax would be fine, except you know our politicians would load us up with other taxes and income taxes as well.

That illegal aliens pay sales tax does nothing to alter the fact that they consume services whose cost is orders of magnitude greater than the sales tax they may pay.

More than 50% of the people in this country don't pay any income tax. These are the freeloaders. They are recipients of transfer payments from the productive sector of society. They get to vote to take more of my money. Why am I working for them? What qualifies one group of people as a recipient class, while another sector of society is designated as an involuntary donor class? How is it fair that the group designated as the recipient class gets to vote on how much of my money they get to take from me? While Proudhon the French socialist proclaimed "Property is theft," the truth is, burdensome taxation intended to transfer wealth from one group of citizens to another, is theft. What is to stop the self proclaimed 99% from voting to take all my property?

Socialism is theft, inefficient and the road to serfdom.

PS, it's the Senate that hasn't even proposed a budget for 3 years. Harry Reid promises he will not propose a budget. After all, if the American people saw what the democrats had in store for them, they'd be as scared as they should be.

The Republican majority House has proposed a budget every year. Obama's budget was put up to a vote in the House (against the wishes of the democrats) and Obama's budget was UNANIMOUSLY defeated. Every democrat and every republican voted against it. That's an accomplishment.

Ain't gonna work. Mark will never pray on the altar of Bob.
No you're not, no you're not.

I don't understand why the republican pendents don't point this fact... Every time i think they are going to point this fact out... They DON'T!!... it really bugs me, this is the perfect argument that they have against the Buffett rule, and they aren't using it!

True dakkon. Also, the Buffett Rule would effectively double the Capital Gains Tax. Where do you think capital will go then? Anywhere but here!

Obama's policies, including his signature energy policy, are intended to cripple this country and bring us low.

He gets it. I hope the electorate does in time as well.

By this logic, we should consider kicking out of the union states that receive more federal money than they send.

"union states"? I assume you mean states in the union which receive more than their citizens pay to the Federal Government in income taxes. No one is talking about "kicking" anyone out. In a Federal system, states have rights as well. Once the western territories were admitted, there were undeveloped states and economies in the union. You may recall from your high school text books, the problems of regionalism.

Anyway, now we have earmarks and Congressmen who vie for the most pork for their respective districts. The answer is less of our money for the political class to distribute to the objects of their preference.

When the political and cultural elites decide that some sector of society is entitled to preference, and by that I mean transfer of your money (I assume you're among the 50% that pays income tax though I don't know why I make that assumption), they first decide that group is "needy" in some way. Once they decide members of a group have superior rights to the money of individuals who are productive, then we see "group" rights prevailing over individual liberties. Group rights are always at the expense of individual liberties.

Of course, some would say that it is better to be generous. However, for the most part, it is people who are willing to be generous with other people's money who hold themselves out as the most socially conscious.

Of course that leaves the individual with less to give to charities of the individual's choice. Obama intends to end deductions for charitable contributions. That should finish things off pretty well. He and the liberal elites will drive the Catholic Church out of most medical, adoptions and other charitable enterprises, and pretty soon, the only soup line will be the People's Soup Line with a big picture of Obama on the wall.

It is pretty safe to say that if you have the income that allows you to enjoy HT ect, it would be a safe assumption that you are in the top 50% income bracket...



This is a bit fanatical, don't you think? This is even more extreme than my 20$ lettuce example

BTW, I figure you for a tax payer.PMB, I'm not so sure about.

Obama is impoverishing this country. People will have to choose between food-stamps and liberty. Narcisists like big pictures of themselves.

I know, I know---all of the languages, histories, and cultures that the six of us don't share. Why, it's almost as good as Epcot! I will admit though, only Vermont adds wood chips to food.

My sentence was perfectly grammatical. "kicking out of the union" and "states that receive..." are two separate clauses. You may recall clauses from high school English.

I'm in 99% agreement with you on this. Pun intended.

Dakkon, my comment about the number of non-tax paying illegals here in the US is only one factor. I will tell you this, I would rather pay just sales tax than sales tax AND income tax. Even here where the city adds a percent, paying 7% for purchases vs. 18% (or whatever income tax is) AND 7% for purchases.

Let me say this. This country was built on immigration. We shouldn't close our doors, we should in fact make it EASIER to come here. YES, EASIER! But also make it easier to get citizenship. Easier to get legit SS#'s, easier to be a legal part of this country. Then put up strict laws and strict enforcement of those laws for anyone who is here illegally since there is no reason NOT to be a legal (income tax paying) citizen. Instead we have a system where getting citizenship is difficult (at least according to Hillary Clinton) and these people actually don't WANT to be a citizen because they don't want to pay taxes (general statement folks, obviously some of them want to be citizens). They make more money by not going through the hassle of becoming citizens.

I feel ya on this one nick, our local sales tax is 8.25%!!!...




I would agree with this paragraph, like i said before.. Many of the people that are coming here, just want a better life for them as well as their families... Which, was the reason people migrated to north america in the first place... There was also some religious fanatics that wanted to "spread the world of god"... i don't feel that people immigrating specifically want to avoid taxes. I think this is a ridiculous though processes.. People would rather avoid taxes, so they can constantly live in fear of deportation and have to be constantly looking over their shoulder....? i think this was proven by the GA and Alabama immigration policys that were instated last summer as well... Those states had a mass exodus of immigrants....

You were so close! Well, not really. It's happened eight times:

George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Herbert Hoover lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.

William Taft lost to Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

Benjamin Harrison lost to Grover Cleveland in 1892. (Sweet revenge!)

Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

John Quincy Adams lost to Andrew Jackson in 1828.

John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson in 1800.

In addition, Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976, but as Ford was appointed to the Vice Presidency and then assumed the Presidency when Nixon resigned, Ford was never elected President and therefore was running for election, not reelection.

Thanks, JP. I was hoping somebody slightly less lazy than me would post that.

"JP - now marginally less lazy than Tom!"

See. That is what I get for not researching it myself. I guess there is "Hope" for a "Change" then.

I'll stick with Obama over the Etch-a-Sketch.

I like your reasoning medic8r! I just paid $4.89 for hi-test. Love obama's energy policy! Cut back on drilling and licensing on public lands, impose stringent regulations so refinaries must shut down, and then take credit for the increase in production on private lands! Brilliant. His all-of-the-above policy is great. He wants to raise the price of fossil fuels so his pet green energy sources will appear competitive. At $10 a gallon, gas, solar and wind will look pretty good.

Obama is a demagogue. He has divided the country so we cannot stand together, Rich poor, black white, atheist, religious, woman men, working women, stay at home moms.

Obama does not believe Jihadists are waging a religious war against the non-Muslim world, but he does believe republicans are waging a war against women.

Gotta love him!

Translation: OMG, OBAMA IS WILLFULLY DESTROYING ALL WE HOLD DEAR! WE ARE DOOMED! DOOOOOOOMMMEDDD!!!!! IT CAN'T BE THAT I SIMPLY DISAGREE WITH HIS POLICIES AND HAVE FALLEN FOR THE DIVISIVENESS CREATED BY BOTH PARTIES AND THE MEDIA! EXAGGERATION! PARANOIA! HELLFIRE!!!!

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Since we are throwing stereotypes out there (wait, wasn't this supposed to stay civil), anyway, spoken like a typical leftist.

Sort of like when I travel for work and I make one comment (or a dozen) about anything, at all, to do with corn, and people say, oh, that's right, you are from Iowa. It isn't like I am a farmer. Heck, I've never lived on a farm, and I only know 2 farmers. One is my wife's uncle, and the other was the father of one of my best friends in high-school.

I think that any more people feel that they need to lean even further to the left or right to get their point across. Heaven forbid that we try to show any level of compromise... That is like giving up... Compromising our beliefs/desires... Gets us called "soft" by others with similar thoughts as us....... Actually works towards seeing the other person's perspective... Stops some of the flip/flopping every time we get a new president who "has to" swing the pendulum so far back the other way so that when they lose an election, it hinders the other guy's ability to try to run the country.

NOTE: While I did quote a message at the start of this. This was directed at everyone reading/participating in this thread. For everything that you think sounds ridiculous, the "other side" has similar thoughts/comments about you.

I know that a number of the regulars here voted for Obama, are registered as "Democrat", or are in some other shape or form "way out there" from what I think on a lot of this stuff, but I'm cool with that. I think it would be terrible if we were all lemmings...



I also think that the governmental system is corrupt more now (in this "day and age," not picking on Obama because it goes back further and much wider than just him) than it was decades ago.

You voted for Kudos?


Oh, you mean IV4K....

Hmmm. I couldn't find anyone to vote for last election, so I didn't vote. They seemed to be an equally bad choice. But, now kudos. I might vote for that.

pmbuko, mockery is not argument. It just presumes a superior position without having earned it.

I don't think you've given Obama's promise to fundamentally transform our system its due. I think he's attempting to transform our society into a socialist, amoral state.

He didn't have to presume the superior position. You put yourself in the inferior position with your psychotic ramblings. Seriously, you need to lay off of the political TV/radio/whatever source that you're feeding your brain. It's so clearly poisoning you.

I respect your right to hold a different opinion than me on any topic. However, your paranoid anti-Obama rants are just too much. When you claim that the President of the United States of America is purposefully trying to hurt the country as some sort of conspiracy, you've lost all credibility. Maybe my perspective is skewed - my radar too sensitive - from dealing with psychotic patients all day, but I doubt it. You really make me want to fit you for an aluminum foil hat.

I mean, there's such a significant chasm between "I think his policies are bad, and I disagree" and "I think his policies are purposefully bad as part of a plot to destroy America". The latter is the rant of a psychotic jackass.

There's clearly not going to be any talking sense into you. I give up.

Of course. Here's an example. Major Nidal Hasan (fellow psychiatrist?), sprays his fellow American soldiers with gunfire while he yells Allahu Achbar. He murders 13 and seriously wounds another 32 at Fort Hood.

Terrorist attack by a Jihadist? No, according to the Obama administration, it was an industrial work accident. So, who is promoting a delusion of normalcy in the face of a clear Jihadist Terrorist attack? Maybe you think to contradict the given wisdom is paranoid. You have the right to be wrong.

Medic8r, you may be a shrink, so it may come easy to you to dismiss political opinions with which you disagree as "paranoid," or "psychotic ramblings." You know, medic8r, your profession has performed great services for totalitarian regimes all over the world. In the former Soviet Union, those who disagreed with the given wisdom were denoted psychotic and treated by your fellow shrinks. In Iran, dissidents are committed to psychiatric institutions which are nothing short of prisons of torture. Psychiatry has a reputation of enforcing the "party line" whether it is the Party of God, the Ba'athist Party in Syria, the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran Party.

So, your professional commitment to convention is not surprising. Name calling or accusations of mental illness do not advance your argument.

so...medic8r, you believe that aluminum foil hats do work!

I know that there have been times in U.S. history where we've been divided and dissatisfied with the workings of government. But I don't believe that there's been a time when one side has lost all respect for the office of President as many have now. It's so over the top to think that Obama is Kenyan-born; a secret Muslim whose intent is to destroy the country. The stockpiling of guns when he took office. The accusation that he's trying to turn us into a Socialist country. Comparisons to Effen' Hitler, for God's sake.

I largely blame Fox News. In a country where freedom of speech is valued above almost everything else (rightfully so), I think it's responsible for dividing us at this point.

If you already have a belief....or just a suspicion.... and the "Fair and Balanced News" that you hear is totally one-sided, at once confirming your suspicions, adding to them, and denying your ability to "hear the other side of the argument"... How can anyone blame 50% of the country for becoming rabid haters and conspirator theorists? And yes, I know that MSNBC is ALSO not neutral in their reporting, but MSNBC doesn't have near the impact that Fox News has. I see Fox News as an organization that, as a whole and individually by commentators, has made a HUGE amount of money by fear mongering. Whip up the country, say some outrageous things, then put out a book and go on a speaking tour. "Confuse" the news reporting with the commentaries. Shout down anyone who disagrees and call them unpatriotic Socialists.

And the rest of the media is not Left.... it's just that Fox is so far off neutral as a point of reference that everything else looks off-kilter.

I don't agree with everything Obama has done.... nor any other politician.

But I think he was dealt a shi**y hand, and some Americans don't have the patience to realize gigantic problems don't come with overnight fixes...especially the economy. We were in two wars and on our way to a depression when he took office. The fact that people were upset that the economy wasn't perfect within the first six months of his Presidency shows that lack of patience.

I'm tired of it.

The world cheered when Obama took office. While he may have fallen short of the expectations that some had, that doesn't make him a monster either.

I believe the late Walter Cronkite made it clear when discussing the state of the media in the US. "Unfortunately, it is no longer telling well researched stories that inform the public, it is now strictly opinion disguised as news". Essentially "talk radio" on television. Each political and ideological media outlet just now preach to their own choir. No wonder the public is so divided(and uninformed).