My wife's shoebox at our old house was about a meter tall, had two doors on the front,and several shelves inside. It held a dozen or so pair of shoes and boots.
So, of all the things I wrote, the one argument you can throw back at me is that the individual mandate, which is just one part of Obamacare, was endorsed by RINOs. Please don't feel insulted when I say that I expected something more substantial. Still incorrect, but substantial.
Here is my substantial reply:
First, I had to go back up and read what I said about it, because I thought we were comparing Reagan and Obama. That's right, Reagan pushed deregulation of industries, and Obama has pushed greater regulation, in direct opposition to your original claim of their similarity.
So, having lost that fight, you want to focus just on Obamacare, because your talking points memo has a few bullets to support you. Fine, I'll accept your concession of all the major points, and focus on the red herring you are waving in place of the white flag.
Obamacare is a Democrat law passed by Democrats in the House and Senate. It is of dubious lineage at that, because of the many lobbyists and special interest groups that wrote various parts of it. Many of the various parts are counterproductive, such as specifically taxing companies that make medical devices, which will in turn drive up the cost of those same devices.
The individual mandate part of Obamacare was originally put out by some stupid people who thought they had a great rebuttal to Hillarycare. Turns out they were just idiots, and have since recanted. But you love to use their mistake as representative of all Republicans. Good for you.
(By the way, I'm not Republican, or Libertarian. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012, and would again.)
As for Romneycare, I have no problem at all with Romneycare. That is because the US Constitution does not state that Massachusetts cannot enact such a law. As long as Massachusetts' own charter does not prohibit it, there is nothing untoward about a particular state having the individual mandate. Shocking, I know. States' Rights, and all that.
Even at that, I prefer Hawaii's system more, and it worked far better than Obamacare could. In Hawaii, businesses have to provide insurance coverage for their employees. Employees were not obligated to sign up for the insurance, so it wasn't an individual mandate, but an employer mandate to offer it. The costs of the coverage also had to be reasonable, with a ceiling of some percent of the employee's pay.
But that sounds like the employer mandate in Obamacare, so I have to oppose it, right? Wrong. Again, a state can make laws that the federal government is not allowed to make. Just as the federal government can make laws that the individual states are not allowed to make. So Hawaii, in its aloha spirit way, has a law that requires businesses to provide for their employees. And it works quite well, if not perfectly.
So, is that detailed enough for you? Or do I have to go into the real muck of Obamacare? Of course, everything I say against your ideology will just be brushed aside, so I don't plan to write another novel for you here.
Quite honestly, I don't know whether you are being serious with that post, or if I'm just feeding a troll. Nothing you posted bears the slightest resemblance to the truth. Well, other than the fact that Putin isn't being very neighborly. But you pull off into left field with that aspect too.
Abortion isn't a liberal/conservative issue? But they take positions that appeal to their liberal or conservative base? So you contradict yourself, while being wrong concerning both presidents. Reagan was certainly pro-life. And Obama was obviously pro-choice when he was running in 2008. If anything, Obama down-played it during the election to appeal to the other guy's base.
How are they the same on drugs? Reagan started the War on Drugs, and Obama's only contribution was removing a large amount of it from the local supply, while in high school. And for what it's worth, I think the criminalization of drugs is one of the worst policies in American government.
Now for the UK. Reagan was a strong supporter of the British government, especially with Margaret Thatcher at the helm. Obama brushes them off, no matter who is in charge. It's almost like he dislikes the country that colonized his family's land. (Yes, I have read his books..)
You are right about Putin. President Obama is being very tough on him, freezing bank accounts and holding press conferences in the Rose Garden. President Reagan only went to the Berlin Wall and demanded it be torn down.
However, you did a quick little sidestep there, hoping I wouldn't notice. Putin is not trying to bring back communism to Russia. He is happy to allow capitalism to enrich his cronies, and himself of course. How about you make an observation about Cuba, or Venezuela instead?
Finally unions. The defining difference between the two is that Reagan didn't promise the unions anything, and didn't put up with their shit when they broke the law. Obama promised the unions everything, and then ignored them once he got their vote. He still blows kisses to them once in a while, but it's obvious he only used them for political gain.
It's interesting you only think certain government issues are worthy of comment. I certainly didn't limit my scope to non-issues. Just to ones you are apparently uncomfortable with, as well as unfamiliar. But the three you chose are odd examples of similarity between Reagan and Obama.
Reagan weathered a recession by keeping a tight money supply, implemented by Fed chair Paul Volker. Obama has pushed billions of dollars per month into the money supply to try to end the current recession (that supposedly ended five years ago).
Government regulation? Are you kidding me? People still blame Reagan for bad airline service because he deregulated them. Have you heard of the small regulation called Obamacare? Maybe you should read up on it. And we all know Obama would push a single-payer system if he thought he could get away with it.
And finally, energy policy. Did Reagan ever hold up approval of a pipeline until after an election? Did his administration rescind leases of public land to be used for oil drilling, shut down active drilling operations, and even lie to the courts in order to do so? Because Obama's administration has done all that. So, really, I don't see the comparison you are looking for.
Does the definition of the word "resemble" escape you?
And since female breasts are sometimes referred to as "melons", "mosquito bites", "scoops of vanilla ice cream", and so on, the literal comparison between a penis and a rocket is quite stupid.
Hey, at least its real data that hasn't been blown completely out of proportion. Normally a story like this would have a headline that read "Noah back from the dead to rebuild Ark! God said he wouldn't do it again but now he's just mad at his fellow republicans!" etc...
The real question is this - barring taking children away from their parents for proper enculturation, what can government possibly do to turn the toxic tide of such cultural values?
Gas the crime-ridden neighborhoods, then start over with a fresh batch of people who want to learn.
But I don't think that will go ever well at the ballot box.
A "tax refund" is given when a company pays more in taxes during the year than they owe. Why would the government not give a refund if the amount paid in was too high?
Also, the oil companies don't get bail outs, that was the banks, and the left was completely in agreement with it.
Subsidies? You guys keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Anyway, I realize this is all offtopic, but I saw that someone else had actually heard of Jill Stein, so my comment that is actually ON topic is that apparently the manipulators and liars weren't completely effective, because a few people actually know who she is.
I was one of the few that voted for her last election.
There was a site I was on for a few years, that had a couple dozen regular posters. About half of us voted for her, from the more-conservatives like myself, to the far-lefties who hate Obama's right-wing policies.
So in 2001, the CBO was pretending the DotCom Bubble hadn't burst. Big surprise there. The budget surplus was already going down before Bush made any changes, because there was less money going into the system. Because the bubble burst. Which was before Bush was elected.
Hate on Bush all you want for tax cuts. He enacted those because of the recession that was starting. Need I say why the recession started? Or when?
For your information, "Clinton's surplus" was because of Republican Congress that didn't let him spend much money. It also was only possible because of the DotCom Bubble of the 1990s. Once that burst during Clinton's final year in office, the surplus vanished.
I could argue for no date whatsoever. How about an actual test of maturity? If a 13 year old passes, he or she is legally an adult. If someone never takes it, they are never allowed to sit at the grown-ups table for the holidays.
Slashdot Mirror
No. It says "50 or so meters", so that is equal to 1968.50694 ± 40 inches.
Must be accurate in these things.
My GPS gives me a blue arrow on a map of the neighborhood/highway I'm driving through/down, with no coordinate system displayed.
Don't worry, the rest of us understood what you were saying.
My wife's shoebox at our old house was about a meter tall, had two doors on the front,and several shelves inside. It held a dozen or so pair of shoes and boots.
Does it work better if the man tastes peanut-buttery?
So, of all the things I wrote, the one argument you can throw back at me is that the individual mandate, which is just one part of Obamacare, was endorsed by RINOs. Please don't feel insulted when I say that I expected something more substantial. Still incorrect, but substantial.
Here is my substantial reply:
First, I had to go back up and read what I said about it, because I thought we were comparing Reagan and Obama. That's right, Reagan pushed deregulation of industries, and Obama has pushed greater regulation, in direct opposition to your original claim of their similarity.
So, having lost that fight, you want to focus just on Obamacare, because your talking points memo has a few bullets to support you. Fine, I'll accept your concession of all the major points, and focus on the red herring you are waving in place of the white flag.
Obamacare is a Democrat law passed by Democrats in the House and Senate. It is of dubious lineage at that, because of the many lobbyists and special interest groups that wrote various parts of it. Many of the various parts are counterproductive, such as specifically taxing companies that make medical devices, which will in turn drive up the cost of those same devices.
The individual mandate part of Obamacare was originally put out by some stupid people who thought they had a great rebuttal to Hillarycare. Turns out they were just idiots, and have since recanted. But you love to use their mistake as representative of all Republicans. Good for you.
(By the way, I'm not Republican, or Libertarian. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012, and would again.)
As for Romneycare, I have no problem at all with Romneycare. That is because the US Constitution does not state that Massachusetts cannot enact such a law. As long as Massachusetts' own charter does not prohibit it, there is nothing untoward about a particular state having the individual mandate. Shocking, I know. States' Rights, and all that.
Even at that, I prefer Hawaii's system more, and it worked far better than Obamacare could. In Hawaii, businesses have to provide insurance coverage for their employees. Employees were not obligated to sign up for the insurance, so it wasn't an individual mandate, but an employer mandate to offer it. The costs of the coverage also had to be reasonable, with a ceiling of some percent of the employee's pay.
But that sounds like the employer mandate in Obamacare, so I have to oppose it, right? Wrong. Again, a state can make laws that the federal government is not allowed to make. Just as the federal government can make laws that the individual states are not allowed to make. So Hawaii, in its aloha spirit way, has a law that requires businesses to provide for their employees. And it works quite well, if not perfectly.
So, is that detailed enough for you? Or do I have to go into the real muck of Obamacare? Of course, everything I say against your ideology will just be brushed aside, so I don't plan to write another novel for you here.
Quite honestly, I don't know whether you are being serious with that post, or if I'm just feeding a troll. Nothing you posted bears the slightest resemblance to the truth. Well, other than the fact that Putin isn't being very neighborly. But you pull off into left field with that aspect too.
Abortion isn't a liberal/conservative issue? But they take positions that appeal to their liberal or conservative base? So you contradict yourself, while being wrong concerning both presidents. Reagan was certainly pro-life. And Obama was obviously pro-choice when he was running in 2008. If anything, Obama down-played it during the election to appeal to the other guy's base.
How are they the same on drugs? Reagan started the War on Drugs, and Obama's only contribution was removing a large amount of it from the local supply, while in high school. And for what it's worth, I think the criminalization of drugs is one of the worst policies in American government.
Now for the UK. Reagan was a strong supporter of the British government, especially with Margaret Thatcher at the helm. Obama brushes them off, no matter who is in charge. It's almost like he dislikes the country that colonized his family's land. (Yes, I have read his books..)
You are right about Putin. President Obama is being very tough on him, freezing bank accounts and holding press conferences in the Rose Garden. President Reagan only went to the Berlin Wall and demanded it be torn down.
However, you did a quick little sidestep there, hoping I wouldn't notice. Putin is not trying to bring back communism to Russia. He is happy to allow capitalism to enrich his cronies, and himself of course. How about you make an observation about Cuba, or Venezuela instead?
Finally unions. The defining difference between the two is that Reagan didn't promise the unions anything, and didn't put up with their shit when they broke the law. Obama promised the unions everything, and then ignored them once he got their vote. He still blows kisses to them once in a while, but it's obvious he only used them for political gain.
It's interesting you only think certain government issues are worthy of comment. I certainly didn't limit my scope to non-issues. Just to ones you are apparently uncomfortable with, as well as unfamiliar. But the three you chose are odd examples of similarity between Reagan and Obama.
Reagan weathered a recession by keeping a tight money supply, implemented by Fed chair Paul Volker. Obama has pushed billions of dollars per month into the money supply to try to end the current recession (that supposedly ended five years ago).
Government regulation? Are you kidding me? People still blame Reagan for bad airline service because he deregulated them. Have you heard of the small regulation called Obamacare? Maybe you should read up on it. And we all know Obama would push a single-payer system if he thought he could get away with it.
And finally, energy policy. Did Reagan ever hold up approval of a pipeline until after an election? Did his administration rescind leases of public land to be used for oil drilling, shut down active drilling operations, and even lie to the courts in order to do so? Because Obama's administration has done all that. So, really, I don't see the comparison you are looking for.
Do try to remember that last really good President we had, and the sign on his desk - "The Buck Stops Here"
Errr ... Johnson?
A lot. Like selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, getting an ambassador killed, bowing to every leader he can, and perfecting his golf swing.
Should I use a trivial search to find more?
Liberals 2008: "Bush is a liar! Obama will tell the truth!"
Liberals 2014: "All politicians lie."
It deserves more visibility.
Oh please. If Clinton had an 'R' after his name instead of a 'D', you'd be asking why he was never brought up on rape charges.
But because he plays for your team, you overlook every bad thing he did and give him credit for good things that others did.
OK, I'll play this game. Here are five topics that Reagan had a strong position on. How does Obama compare?
1. Abortion
2. Unionized workers
3. Communist regimes (such as in USSR or Cuba)
4. Drugs
5. Relations with the UK
Can you compare Reagan's and Obama's public stances on those items?
Also, anyone who doesn't support Obama in every instance is obviously a racist who hates having a black man in the White House.
I thought the design I tattooed on your sister's ass was the Chinese symbol for 'courage'. It turned out to be the symbol for 'soup' instead.
.
My bad.
Does the definition of the word "resemble" escape you?
And since female breasts are sometimes referred to as "melons", "mosquito bites", "scoops of vanilla ice cream", and so on, the literal comparison between a penis and a rocket is quite stupid.
Hey, at least its real data that hasn't been blown completely out of proportion. Normally a story like this would have a headline that read "Noah back from the dead to rebuild Ark! God said he wouldn't do it again but now he's just mad at his fellow republicans!" etc...
ftfy
The real question is this - barring taking children away from their parents for proper enculturation, what can government possibly do to turn the toxic tide of such cultural values?
Gas the crime-ridden neighborhoods, then start over with a fresh batch of people who want to learn.
But I don't think that will go ever well at the ballot box.
A "tax refund" is given when a company pays more in taxes during the year than they owe. Why would the government not give a refund if the amount paid in was too high?
Also, the oil companies don't get bail outs, that was the banks, and the left was completely in agreement with it.
Subsidies? You guys keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Do you think receiving a refund means people don't pay taxes?
Warren Buffet could easily pay more taxes. He would just have to start taking compensation as salary, rather than as stock.
He is the biggest hypocrite in this sort of discussion.
Anyway, I realize this is all offtopic, but I saw that someone else had actually heard of Jill Stein, so my comment that is actually ON topic is that apparently the manipulators and liars weren't completely effective, because a few people actually know who she is.
I was one of the few that voted for her last election.
There was a site I was on for a few years, that had a couple dozen regular posters. About half of us voted for her, from the more-conservatives like myself, to the far-lefties who hate Obama's right-wing policies.
Also, read my sig.
So in 2001, the CBO was pretending the DotCom Bubble hadn't burst. Big surprise there. The budget surplus was already going down before Bush made any changes, because there was less money going into the system. Because the bubble burst. Which was before Bush was elected.
Hate on Bush all you want for tax cuts. He enacted those because of the recession that was starting. Need I say why the recession started? Or when?
No, my ancestors were all reptilian. You insensitive clod. :^P
For your information, "Clinton's surplus" was because of Republican Congress that didn't let him spend much money. It also was only possible because of the DotCom Bubble of the 1990s. Once that burst during Clinton's final year in office, the surplus vanished.
I could argue for no date whatsoever. How about an actual test of maturity? If a 13 year old passes, he or she is legally an adult. If someone never takes it, they are never allowed to sit at the grown-ups table for the holidays.