Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 06-18-2010, 12:58 PM   #31
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY View Post
Its not that, during those terrible events in our history, we had presidents that took charge and delivered postive messages. Paul cant react to that. He apparently only understands whining, fingerpointing and messages of catastropy!
Some of the most significant legislation in our history has been passed recently - that's taking charge.

I've been reading whining, fingerpointing and many message of catastrophy here for the last 18 months.
PaulS is offline  
Old 06-18-2010, 03:11 PM   #32
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIJIMMY View Post
Its not that, during those terrible events in our history, we had presidents that took charge and delivered postive messages. Paul cant react to that. He apparently only understands whining, fingerpointing and messages of catastropy!
I was harkening back to this little gem....and suggesting how "they" might respond if you were to suggest that those things you listed "made you laugh"...

likwid

" I don't see anything funny or "karmatic" about being hit by a drunk driver doing 60.

Have you ever been privy to it? If so, I'd really like to know whats so amusing."

and

" Yeah, we totally get our kicks out of people getting hit by drunk drivers.

Stay classy dude."

can we get back to bashing Palin, or would you like to move on to the anti-semetic sex goddess of the left ?...wonder if she had a boob job?....
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Helen_Thomas_13.jpg
Views:	352
Size:	16.9 KB
ID:	40300  

Last edited by scottw; 06-18-2010 at 03:19 PM..
scottw is offline  
Old 06-18-2010, 08:55 PM   #33
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
The point is that Obama was left with the worse economic situation since the great depression with many pillors of our economy on the verge of going out of business in addition to 2 wars (1 we shouldn't have been in).
No. Spence's point, as far as I can tell, is that it is incredible that "they" attack Obama "for a lack of focus"--incredible because he "inherited" "two wars, Guantanamo, recession, unemployment, Natl debt, largest oil disaster ever."

As for your "worse economic situation since the Great Depression"--that "situation" has been building through "inherited" mismanagement and continued mismanagement of several administrations and continues to do so under the management/mismanagement of the Obama administration.

The wars also are a continuation of world pressures and radical Islamic attacks that led to our response to 9/11 (presumabley the war we should be in?) and expanded to Iraq which Obama says is basically over and Biden says is going well (so the "bad" war was a good inheritance.) Guantanamo was not supposed to be an inheritance since "O" said he would simply close it. Recession is an in-and-out that most POTUSes, if they're smart, let run its natural course and don't prolong or exacerbate with opportunistic political meddling (don't let a crisis go to waste). Unemployment expanded under "O" from what he "inherited." The National Debt has been "inherited" by all POTUSes who pass it on to the next, larger than what they "inherited." "O" has already grown the Debt MASSIVELY in less than two years. And he didn't "inherit" the oil disaster.

Now, most of what "O" "inherited" was what he promised to "fix." That is, presumably, what got him elected. So why should he , or any other President, past, present, or future, be coddled for "inheriting" the burdens they promise to fix. If they are attacked by a "they" for lack of focus, . . . then . . . focus.

I do not feel sorry for the executive branch because of its overburdening workload. The POTUSes have brought it on themselves by usurping the powers that were meant for others--other branches of gov. especially powers granted to the States and the People, NOT to the Federal Gvt. and NOT to its executive branch. Wars, YES. Recessions, unemployment, oil disasters, hurricanes, NO. And once having stolen these responsibilities for themselves, it is unseemly to complain about being overburdened, to the point of lacking focus, with the problems that were not meant to be handled by one man and his politically motivated cronies.

Last edited by detbuch; 06-18-2010 at 09:34 PM.. Reason: typo
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-18-2010, 09:25 PM   #34
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Some of the most significant legislation in our history has been passed recently - that's taking charge.

I've been reading whining, fingerpointing and many message of catastrophy here for the last 18 months.
That legislation is significant does not mean it is good. And what you may mean by significant may only be a part of the legislaltion's full importance. A great deal of what "O" has done goes far beyond its expressed intent. For example, more important than the so-called health care legislation (which defeats the intention of lowering cost) is its continued assault on the People's power and further consolidation of power into the Federal Gvt. and specifically into the hands of the POTUS.
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-20-2010, 11:43 AM   #35
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
[QUOTE=detbuch;774796]That legislation is significant does not mean it is good. .[/QUOT]

That's your opinion. Even working in the Ins. industry, I'm very happy with it.
PaulS is offline  
Old 06-20-2010, 05:25 PM   #36
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
I think Obama's doing a swell job.
buckman is offline  
Old 06-20-2010, 09:08 PM   #37
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
[QUOTE=PaulS;775050]
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
That legislation is significant does not mean it is good. .[/QUOT]

That's your opinion. Even working in the Ins. industry, I'm very happy with it.
What is it, specifically, that makes you happy with it?
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 05:28 AM   #38
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
it's kinda like saying you are "very happy" with the new car that you haven't taken delivery of yet and have barely driven and you are just hoping the salesman was being honest with you, isn't it?

Last edited by scottw; 06-21-2010 at 05:40 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 07:02 AM   #39
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
[QUOTE=detbuch;775103]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

What is it, specifically, that makes you happy with it?
I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
it's kinda like saying you are "very happy" with the new car that you haven't taken delivery of yet and have barely driven and you are just hoping the salesman was being honest with you, isn't it?
so you mean all the people whining the last 18 months should have waited to see how it turns out before breaking out in complaining fits?
PaulS is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 07:28 AM   #40
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
[QUOTE=PaulS;775136]
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare. inane, the left seems to really like to pick and choose when it comes to morality, sliding scale based on political values and advantage rather than right and wrong



so you mean all the people whining the last 18 months should have waited to see how it turns out before breaking out in complaining fits?
should you try to put the fire out in your kitchen or wait till the house burns down to "see how it turns out"?

is that all you've got? you just severely lowered my opinion of Obama voters and that's really saying something....
scottw is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 07:48 AM   #41
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
[QUOTE=scottw;775142]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
is that all you've got? you just severely lowered my opinion of Obama voters and that's really saying something....
And you obviously haven't changed my opinion of you.

Any time you want to compare morals, pls. let me know.
PaulS is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 07:56 AM   #42
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
[QUOTE=PaulS;775147]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post

And you obviously haven't changed my opinion of you.

Any time you want to compare morals, pls. let me know.


what does that mean? your argument for government run healthcare is "I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare." ?

first, you need to show me people who don't get healthcare, I think the dems tried in the primary and during the push for this debacle and each time the examples were shown to be either bogus or misrepresented.....what you want is Government Provided Healthcare because you believe for some unknown reason that Government can do a better job of providing it than the private sector...better check what's going on with the "doc fix" right now and see how happy those folks that are relying on the govt. for coverage and payments are feeling ....you can't possibly explain how this will work financially, each week another surprise in the legislation is exposed and the costs are going up and up along with the spending and accumulating debt from this congress and administration...you must believe in the toothfairy

with all of the other big democrat entitlements un-funded, bankrupt and about to be burdened as never before...how do you think this will work out???

"How do you slap a $940 billion pricetag on what’s actually a multitrillion-dollar bill? Well, as we’ve seen, the first thing you do is make sure not to start the program until almost halfway through CBO’s window of time for measuring how much it’ll cost. That cuts a trillion or two right off the top. But what if that still leaves you with budget deficits, thus crippling your sub-moronic talking point about how this massive new federal entitlement will save money over time?
Simple. You break the bill up and pass one of the expensive parts separately later. Here’s how a supposed $118 billion reduction in the deficit becomes another case of Obama bloat:
You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.
Under current law, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services will be reduced by about 21 percent in April 2010 and by an average of about 2 percent per year for the rest of the decade. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and would restructure the sustainable growth rate mechanism beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost about $208 billion over the 2010–2019 period. (That estimate reflects the enactment of two short-term extension acts, which lowered the cost in 2010 by about $2 billion compared with CBO’s estimate of November 4, 2009.)…
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961 together with those two bills would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $10 billion less than the figure that would result from summing the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $10 billion difference occurs primarily because H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would modify how the government’s payments to Medicare Advantage plans are set.
Still waiting to find out that if that memo urging Democrats not to talk about “doc fix” is real or not, but you can see why it’s good advice either way. Not only are they hiding another $208 billion in costs, but their dishonesty in passing doc fix separately will cost another $10 bil that could be avoided by passing everything together. Except, of course, that trying to pass everything together would send “fiscally conservative” Democrats fleeing for the hills — not because they care about a trillion-plus pricetag, but because they care that you might care. Or maybe they don’t even care about that, given the way the votes are falling today. Add Suzanne Kosmas to the roll of the shame.
More to come tonight, no doubt, in a very special edition of the Friday evening news dump.
Update: Oh look, some more hidden costs discovered by CBO. Who’s up for another $50 billion on the hook just to administer this thing?
In its March 11, 2010, cost estimate for H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate, CBO indicated that it has identified at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of discretionary spending that might be involved in implementing that legislation. The authority to undertake such spending is not provided in H.R. 3590; it would require future action in appropriation bills. The attached table provides additional information about those authorizations.
Discretionary costs under PPACA would arise from the effects of the legislation on several federal agencies and on a number of new and existing programs subject to future appropriation. Those discretionary costs fall into three general categories…
Update: This is all contingent, of course, upon the Democrats actually passing doctor fix later. Oh, hey look — the AMA, which supports doc fix, just endorsed ObamaCare!"

Last edited by scottw; 06-21-2010 at 08:21 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 08:46 AM   #43
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
[QUOTE=PaulS;775136]
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare.
Are we now to abandon the idea that you can't legislate morality? And if legislating morality is now to be a domain of our Federal Government, whose morality will be the model? Will that change with changing administrations?

The founders understood that individual freedom rests on the notion that the bulk of governmental restriction is against the government not against the people.

My personal view of what Obama meant when he promised to fundamentally change this country is that he would change the constitutional view of what government is not allowed to do, to his (and the left's) view of what the government should do.

And if the government should prescribe so much as to even include how we care for our health and to decide what is moral, then individual freedom will be a phrase with no substance.

And, anyway, before Obama care, the uninsured, as Scott implied did get health care. Maybe not in your moral point of view. The "health care" bill was not about providing health care but about how to pay for it. And it will now, against what was promised, be more expensive and more restrictive. And, temporarilly, maybe why you being in the insurance industry are happy with it, insurance companies will make more money. In the long run, they may be driven out of business.

Last edited by detbuch; 06-21-2010 at 08:58 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 09:08 AM   #44
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
[QUOTE=scottw;775151]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post



what does that mean? your argument for government run healthcare is "I think its a matter of morals that people have healthcare." ?
It means that I think every person should have access to quality healthcare. That is a personal value.

I tend not to read long posts or cut and pastes so I didn't read the rest of the post.
PaulS is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 09:10 AM   #45
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
he hasn't clarified if he's in health insurance or selling car insurance

seems the side that has traditionally screamed "don't force you morals on me"..rosaries and ovaries and all that...are perfectly willing to not only force their morals on others, but force others into a system of healthcare against their will and force them to pay...huh? I suppose if you include yourself under the umbrella or marxism and all of it's tawdry branches...you ought be quite happy....sadly..that's not America and polls show that American's are not pleased with the morality being forced on them by this radical leftist president and his followers....quick quiz...DID OBAMA GOLF OR GO TO CHURCH THIS WEEKEND?
scottw is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 09:11 AM   #46
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
[QUOTE=PaulS;775169]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post

It means that I think every person should have access to quality healthcare. That is a personal value.

I tend not to read long posts or cut and pastes so I didn't read the rest of the post.
GOOD...YOU PAY FOR IT THEN...

AND PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE "ACCESS" TO QUALITY HEALTHCARE AND SOME REASON TO THINK THAT THE NEW HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION IS GOING TO MAGICALLY PROVIDE THIS WHERE IT IS CURENTLY LACKING

would you prefer pictures to words?
scottw is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 10:15 AM   #47
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
[QUOTE=scottw;775171]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

GOOD...YOU PAY FOR IT THEN...

AND PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T HAVE "ACCESS" TO QUALITY HEALTHCARE AND SOME REASON TO THINK THAT THE NEW HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION IS GOING TO MAGICALLY PROVIDE THIS WHERE IT IS CURENTLY LACKING

would you prefer pictures to words?
I am and will continue to pay for it. It looks like you will be too. If you don't like it, you should move someplace you won't have to pay (Somalia?/).

Why when I call for a Dr. appointment do they always ask how I'm going to pay. If I say I don't have insurance or can pay, do your Drs. still allow you to make an appointment.

Sure, you seem to think your so smart, so draw me a picture.
PaulS is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 10:18 AM   #48
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
[QUOTE=PaulS;775185]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post

I am and will continue to pay for it. It looks like you will be too. If you don't like it, you should move someplace you won't have to pay (Somalia?/).

Why when I call for a Dr. appointment do they always ask how I'm going to pay. If I say I don't have insurance or can pay, do your Drs. still allow you to make an appointment.

Sure, you seem to think your so smart, so draw me a picture.
I know...it's crazy for someone providing a service to ask you how you are going to pay for that service after it has been rendered...go figure?!?
scottw is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 10:24 AM   #49
fishbones
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
fishbones's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Easton, MA
Posts: 5,735
[QUOTE=PaulS;775185]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post

I am and will continue to pay for it. It looks like you will be too. If you don't like it, you should move someplace you won't have to pay (Somalia?/).

Why when I call for a Dr. appointment do they always ask how I'm going to pay. If I say I don't have insurance or can pay, do your Drs. still allow you to make an appointment.

Sure, you seem to think your so smart, so draw me a picture.
Paul, they always ask me how I'm going to pay as well. But, do you think that someone without insurance is going to call a doctor to make an appointment? You know better than that. They go to a walk in clinic or ER. Even better, they get an ambulance ride to the hospital ER for a sore throat of nagging cough.
fishbones is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 10:38 AM   #50
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
"do your Drs. still allow you to make an appointment. "


and to expand on that..the answer is YES...we are considered "uninsured" by our doctors and the hospital because I carry a catastrophic policy for my family of 5 which costs $ 300 per month...at the kids pediatrician, dentist and hospital we've never been denied an appointment, had payment demanded prior to or immediately following services and my wife has had some costly expenses recently, we were able to get the services and negotiate prices and get time to pay anything that we could not pay for immediately....of course, most have been conditioned to think that healthcare services are an entitlement and that they should have to do little more than pull a card out of their wallet or purse and someone else will take care of all of the annoying paperwork and payment for whatever treatment they seek...like most entitlements...you just show up and get what you want...unfortunately for entitlements, the line gets really long....
scottw is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 10:45 AM   #51
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,349
[QUOTE=fishbones;775187]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

Paul, they always ask me how I'm going to pay as well. But, do you think that someone without insurance is going to call a doctor to make an appointment? You know better than that. They go to a walk in clinic or ER. Even better, they get an ambulance ride to the hospital ER for a sore throat of nagging cough.
Right.
so if the means were there for LEGAL residents of the US to have access to a primary care physician etc. wouldn't it be better than this clogging up the ER's for sore throats etc...

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 10:57 AM   #52
fishbones
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
 
fishbones's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Easton, MA
Posts: 5,735
[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;775196]
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbones View Post

Right.
so if the means were there for LEGAL residents of the US to have access to a primary care physician etc. wouldn't it be better than this clogging up the ER's for sore throats etc...

What exactly do you mean by legal? I'm only asking because there seems to be different definitions being tossed around out there.

Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
fishbones is offline  
Old 06-21-2010, 11:41 AM   #53
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
[QUOTE=fishbones;775187]
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

Paul, they always ask me how I'm going to pay as well. But, do you think that someone without insurance is going to call a doctor to make an appointment? You know better than that. They go to a walk in clinic or ER. Even better, they get an ambulance ride to the hospital ER for a sore throat of nagging cough.
Agree 100%. But isn't some of the savings going to be that those people will now go to a Dr. (like you and I) instead of going to the ER. The reason many companies pay for preventive at 100% is b/c the long term savings of nipping something in the bud outways the added cost. There usually is an increase in the 1st year but the savings in the future outweigh those costs.
PaulS is offline  
Old 06-24-2010, 10:53 AM   #54
Swimmer
Retired Surfer
iTrader: (0)
 
Swimmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sunset Grill
Posts: 9,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Now, Biden certainly has his share of gaffs, but he's not a stupid man. Sarah Palin is either mentally screwed up or thinking outside the box genius. She really should take some of that book money of hers and hire someone to assist Palin in pulling her head out of her ass.

Damn that Obama for not calling the Dutch back...


Wow, just plain wow.

Swimmer a.k.a. YO YO MA
Serial Mailbox Killer/Seal Fisherman
Swimmer is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com