DJ Premier

lol, shaftiel. how true it is. All the more reason debate for the sake of debate on this matter is mere entertainment and nothing more. But, Bush was stupid. That wasn't a conspiracy. =)

I've just been called a troglodyte! But seriously, ZD, unsure where you want this thread to go but the story has been beaten to death and then some. Are you looking for an impeachment? Inprisonment? Biden to take over?

I say we round him up and send him to your house so you can personally execute him with your cleaver. Maybe then you will finally be at peace. =)

It was Romney who failed on Election day, not his software.

just gotta have a sense of humor. in the past 10 years i've been in these forums, I have yet to see anyone change their minds. It's really more "fun" just to debate for debates purpose. Can't imagine anyone is out there to change anyones mind here.

yay! I got you all to respond!

Instead of changing the electoral college rules. I think republicans could win if they just double down on their best thought tactics to date to win over the hearts and minds of red blooded Americans:

1) Redistricting is awesome!

2) No drivers license? No vote! Or..maybe you should get one of 'dem non-drivers ids!

3) Mexican? Look like a mexican? Show me your papers! Ok, you can vote now.

4) Black? Show me your papers, boy!

5) Woman? The only government programs that should exist are those that tie your legs together. New tax breaks if you stay in the kitchen.

I prefer twitter for my unbiased news. But I hear there's a fwitter coming out that's apparently a more fair and balanced twitter.

haha. there's a reason romney didn't bring up benghazi during the 3rd debate. He started getting intelligence briefings, same as the president. Once that happened, everyone knew this was a witch hunt.

but yes, take it with a grain of salt. maybe two grains.

lol. this place hasn't changed in 10 years!

Hmm. A whole lot of nothing sure got a whole lot of responses here. Ok, you guys all win. We should impeach Obama and burn him tied to a public stake aired on Fox News during prime time, the fair and balanced media outlet.

There is discussion here about atrocities, conspiracy theories, cover up in massive scale and untruths told to the general public that will define us for a decade. There's accusation of willingly installing muslim radicals from the arab spring on the level of treason. We tore down friendly governments and then proceeded to install radicals by somehow coercing the people of those nations to vote for the radicals we wanted to install. The president and all of his cabinet are anti-american and should be publicly stoned to death in front of our women and children and all to see.

Guys, are you all serious? I have to lol.

This is got to the stupidest thing to get politicized. Just put yourself in the situation. Your neighborhood is in the midst of a massive riot caused by one cause and in that midst one of the houses in the neighborhood burns down. Then there's sparse and mixed intelligence. Then someone from another neighborhood claims responsibility for the fire at the house but then you look out your window and there are thousands of people rioting.

I dunno about you but I'd be thinking..ok, what in the world is happening, someone tell me what really happened. Investigate this.

Could it have been handled better? Yes. Is this something as big as people make it out to be? No (the aftermath, not the fact that 4 people died). There are bigger stories than this and topics that are much more important.

You're expressing a sort of libertarian view although maybe not as extreme as Ron Paul. But I do agree, the war on drugs is a waste of time and resources. People will do what they want to do. It's like prohibition. Doesn't work. Do I want to legalize everything? Unsure about that but putting people away into long term jail sentences for using drugs is insane. Btw, we pay for the jailing of these people too. It comes out of our taxes. Sending people to jail for smoking pot is dumb and a waste of our money and time. I say legalize it and tax the crap out of it. Talk about net new revenue sources!! Something as highly prevalent as drugs being kept illegal just keeps organized crime high. Remember, the rich will always find a way to buy drugs no matter how expensive it is. And as long as their is a high price being paid because its illegal, there will always be organized crime surrounding it to monetize it and get rich.

But the fact is, government is hypocritical. Tobacco? Alcohol? They are pretty serious drugs too...much more so than marijauna. THC is non-addictive while alcohol and nicotine are very addictive. Don't let Nancy Reagan's slogans distort reality. But to be frank, I don't know why ppl smoke pot anyways. It just gets you sleepy and lazy. I dunno how that can be any fun at all. But if you do enjoy it, I really don't care. I'd rather not spend my tax dollars chasing you, prosecuting you and then incarcerating you and paying for all of your rehabilitation programs just because you got high.

#1. Obamacare isn't providing free insurance. It forces people to buy insurance at the low rates available for those who are offered plans by employers. This allows those w/o insurance to get affordable care. It also helps with preventative care so we don't end up spending thousands on conditions that could be prevented. This should lower costs across the board.

#2. One of the many reasons medical care is so expensive in emergency rooms is that the same person who is trained to stick their fist into your open chest cavity and know how to stop internal bleeding is the same person treating your broken pinky finger for the uninsured. You shouldn't have to to go an emergency room for that and wouldn't if you had insurance.

#3. Comparing housing insurance and auto insurance to health insurance is ...well.... Btw, we are required to get auto insurance. Go figure.

Again, doesn't look like we'll convince each other so might as well move back to the VP debate topic.

btw, that wasn't a knock against church. Just those who go to church who only pretend to be christians.

Like I said, until it happens to you, you really don't know. You say you are middle class. Well, go without health insurance for the next few years like many middle class families. Tell me how you'd feel. A single accident would put you in ruins. Don't take my word for it, give it a try and take a roll of the dice. You are fortunate you can get insurance, always keep that in mind. I have a brother and mother without it. I'm also diabetic. So guess what, if I lose my job and my coverage, I'm screwed because I have a preexisting condition. But fortunately I'm part of the 2% so I can afford it, for now. Oh, yeah, my taxes are gonna go up if Obama gets reelected. Am I angry? Yep. But I'd be angrier if Romney gets elected and bankrupts the country further with his inability to do math. So yeah, for now I'll pay more, at least until we get out of this mess.

What's funny is that most of you are church going people. Yet argue with each other about "making it my own way" and "why do I need to help others". It's all "me me me". I don't go to church and I appear to have more charity. Go figure.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I don't ever want a super majority in any side of congress. The country is generally down the middle and an uneven congress keeps it that way. Having a supermajority in either side creates a huge divide in the country and that's not something we would want longer term. In the best world, there's an evenly split congress with no one promoting obstructionism. Then generally good things get done that keep ALL of us MOSTLY happy. For the more extreme items, I want government out of the way. I won't go marry a lame man and I will not run into my neighbors house just to see what type of sex he's having. Because frankly, I don't care and it doesn't affect my life one bit.

Hi DJ, long time no see. Good to see that you still observe the forums if not participate.

 

I agree and disagree with you on a few points and I will let the future prove me right or wrong.

 

First, I agree that it really is scary that the undecideds are the ones that typically decide an election. I am not sure that is the case this time around. Statistically there are more conservatives and republicans than there are democrats and liberals. Independents tend to be less than both of the others. Like 2008 when there was a great deal of voter enthusiasm for Obama and the Democrat party as a whole, there is a lot more voter enthusiasm for Romney than there is for Obama. All of the polls (or most) as of late have been ignoring that fact with a higher democrat count than republican and despite this, Romney had been just slightly behind or equal. After the last two debates, Romney is surging ahead and I believe this is because the Pollsters do not want their credibility to be in question when election day comes and goes. That's the way it's been for many election cycles.

 

I disagree with regards to Romney not being any different or doing not much different from Obama. Their philosophies are significantly different and this will be quite obvious in the early stages. I am not the biggest fan of Romney but I think anyone would be better than Obama. I found myself complementing Clinton a few times lately; that's how bad I think Obama and this administration is. Romney I believe understands how business works and how government regulation impacts it and he isn't a Marxist. Yes, I think Obama is a Marxist and it goes all the way back to his words and associations from the 90's all the way to now with his policies and more words. I could be wrong but I think we will see a huge swing in economics the day after Romney's election win (which I believe will happen) and followed by more after much of the regulation is lifted and the buffoons in the treasury department are gone. The one big counter to this is the Bush tax rates expiring on January 1. Nothing Romney can do about that until after he is inaugurated and we need the Republican to take back the Senate and keep the house; I think that will happen too. We will see though.

Well the reason I don't participate in political debate too much is because 99% of the time, no one changes their mind and it turns into bickering of "my belief is better than yours". It's a waste of time in most cases. If I do participate, its to throw out my viewpoint for consideration but not to debate if refuted because in reality, I won't change my mind.

Re: who's going to win the election. Well, polls have been around for a long time. I'm sure they know what they are doing or at least try to be objective. It's their business to do so and if they fail at predicting correctly, well...their business gets less business next time. Free market capitalism at its finest! So do I think Romney will win? Seems less likely but its fairly close. I'm the last one to guarantee anything.

What I do agree is that the market will likely react positively to a Romney election, but only in the short term due to market speculation created by bankers and investors that he will introduce policies that are favorable to corporations. But these things wind down after a correction occurs in the market after reality sits in. In truth there needs to be balance between loosening regulations and providing tax relief. Can't just gut it all and pray that it works. The other realy being that congress is gridlocked more than it has ever been, primarily because of one person - Mitch Mcconnell (maybe Harry Reid too). They both should be fired. My view is that Mitch is poisonous because he is the architect of the obstructionist congress. Moderate republicans are being driven out due to extreme approaches to make Obama a single term president (that he actually said out loud...to the press!). Unreal. Harry Reid needs to go because well....congress approval is at an all time low so we need someone on the other side to take a hit too.

Lastly, I don't think Romney is an idiot. He's probably a very smart man. Obama is as well. Their policies are quite different but given the state of congress, I wouldn't bet that either of them can enact as much change as they'd dream of doing with congress in a state that it's in. So that leaves me to judge on their character a bit more because i can't hang my hat on massive policy changes in the next 4 years.

There's a saying....what one says to a small group in private is likely who they truly are and what they truly believe. I know the 47% comment has been politicized to the extreme, but it does provide a rare glimpse into a man's character. I know Obama and others have said things "unelegantly" in the past but this time around there was really very little room for misinterpretation of what he meant. He said a lot of other things as well that generally contradicted what he tried to portray at the stump. In the end, I don't trust his character and his beliefs. And if you can't trust that, what can I really believe about the man? I'll take a mediocre president over a dishonest one.

All I want to see is basic, preventative care that is available to everyone free of charge.

 

You certainly have the right to your opinions...but I ask the question, why is it the governments job to provide this? We do not live in a Socialist country, whether free basic care is a good thing or not is irrelevant, it really boils down to that simple question to me. And if there were "free" basic health care, which I wasn't aware that Obamacare even went that far, do you really think it will do much? Everything that you need beyond checking your pulse will be an upcharge and you know it. Socialized medicine is a lousy idea, and Obamacare is a baby step in that direction. Where do we stop changing the basic fundamentals of this country?

 

The government should have no authority to tell me that I HAVE to buy healthcare, and it has no constitutional basis for providing basic healthcare to anyone. They should really start working on the real problems that cause it cost so damn much in the first place instead of trying to fix it with more government free stuff...

Well, we differ in our opinions and we're likely not to change each other's minds but one thing that contributes to rising health care cost is the emergency room being used by the uninsured. that's a highly inefficient way of providing heath services. it affects us all because all of our costs go up. I guess the other option is to not provide health care in emergency rooms which then leads to people just dying I suppose. It's all good in theory until it happens to someone you know.

I will say this though. I don't expect much to change in the next 4 years because its really congress that needs to do something. If Romney wins, the democrats will likely do exactly what the republican congress did for the last 4 years, prevent any progress from occurring in order to make him a one term president. Same will continue if Obama wins. The direction of the country isn't really controlled by the president anymore. The acidic environment in congress will continue to force our country into non-action and paralyze us from making any progress in growth. What is the congress approval rating right now? like 4%? It's laughable.

Looks like not much as changed in these forums over the last decade. Simple thoughts as follows

- Anyone who has already made a decision in their heads are unlikely to change their minds now. So to a debate watcher who is already decided, you're going to defend your candidate and flame the other no matter what really happened in the debate from a neutrality perspective

- Anyone who hasn't already made a decision at this point is clearly the same person who struggles with the big mac vs whopper decision every day during lunch. They agonize over it often and they think about it when they wake up in the morning and then often regret their choice after lunch. Often times its better for them to decide to skip lunch so they don't have to make a decision. These are the undecided folks. And they control the fate of our country. Scary.

nothing wrong with individuals banding together to contest a corporation.

just don't force a corporation to use a union. don't prevent individuals banding together to form one.

problem solved.

I am just glad that I do not have to post in this topic. Good to see some old faces to boot.

 

So how are things in DoH DJ? You guys all still around? Is FaceHole still around?

Haven't seen anyone in DOH in years. I actually haven't been playing too many online games. y'know..life catches up to us all at one point or another. Wish I still did have the time though, I do miss playing games every now and then

Well, since we exist in a world of mixed economies, it's pretty foolish to argue for no regulation whatsoever. I guess you can worship at the altar of "pure" capitalism, but it doesn't exist. So regulation is a reality and it is a matter of degree. I think there should be more of it in this case.

Fair point. But what do you think there should be more regulation of? Remember, buying and selling in the global markets follows the same principles of a person to person sale but at a much higher volume. Is it volume that should be regulated?

It seems like the problem is that oil futures and similar transactions are part of a zero sum game -- one man's gain is another man's loss. Those in the know can become fabulously wealthy as they screw over their fellow man. And because I take the dim view that nobody really gives a fig newton about their neighbor, I think there has to be some oversight, or else you just have people robbing people blind.

That's capitalism. i.e., I will try and sell you a car for as much as I possibly can sell it. If the buyer is uninformed and buys it for over market value, is that the sellers fault? No. Why should the government tell me what I can and can't sell at whatever price as long as there is a buyer who agrees with the price? Buyers and sellers should try and be informed. Don't try and "regulate" the person who happened to do more research and due diligence. It's capitalism. Pure and simple.