Obama '08?

@ican711nm,

You are dumber than you think; one person cannot influence the US economy. Even GW Bush with all his dumb policies didn't destroy (completely) the US economy, and he was in a position to do worse for everybody. He almost succeeded, but some small miracles saved this country from the final doom.

Money may buy influence, but it doesn't always buy the votes to win an election.

FYI, it won't matter how much money Sarah Palin gets for her next run as president; she hasn't got a prayer in winning. She's too dumb, and most Americans - even conservatives - know that.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Does it make sense to devote enormous portions of a finite resource to people who are either already dying (e.g. diagnosed with a terminal disease) or who's quality of living is minimal at best (e.g. Alzheimer patients)?

Does it make sense to devote enormous portions of a finite resource on the low percentage chance to preserve a premature baby’s life---a life, which if successfully preserved will almost surely require an inordinate share of the healthcare pie.?

Spot on, Finn. The prospect of "Death Panels" was not invented by the Republicans. It was and is a logical progression of the proposed Obamacare legislation and government health care in general.

Actually, this goes at least as far back as 1984, when Governor Lamm of Colorado said the elderly had a duty to die and get out of the way. Simple logic and budgetary considerations of government health care tells us that such would become an issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/us/gov-lamm-asserts-elderly-if-very-ill-have-duty-to-die.html

"GOV. LAMM ASSERTS ELDERLY, IF VERY ILL, HAVE 'DUTY TO DIE' "

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

It was and is a logical progression

You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass.

Do you even realize that you are committing a Slippery Slope fallacy? Or do you even care?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

okie does't care what he says on a2k, just as long as it parrots FOX News. He never does any fact check or provides any evidence for what he says. It's 100% personal opinion reflective of what he learns from FOX News. He doesn't remember current or past history, doesn't understand the US Constitution, and his knowledge about economics and politics belongs on the laffer curve.

His message is consistent; he hates all liberals, because they take away from the wealthy.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclops and ci, test questions for you. Which party did Governor Lamm of Colorado belong to? And do you think his mode of thinking about "the duty to die" is consistent or inconsistent with Democratic Party thinking of today? The reason I ask is because I am wondering if either of you are capable of recognizing a pattern in all of this.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cyclops and ci, test questions for you. Which party did Governor Lamm of Colorado belong to? And do you think his mode of thinking about "the duty to die" is consistent or inconsistent with Democratic Party thinking of today?

I don't give a **** what party that guy belongs to. It has nothing to do with the politics of today or anything that was in the recent HC reform bill - at all.

The whole 'death panel' thing was bullshit made up by idiot Republicans, then repeated by further idiot Republicans, with the intent of stopping the reform. It never had any basis in fact at all. And you know that's true. It was never anything more than a way to scare old people and rile up the fools who would go on to call themselves 'tea-baggers.'

You should admit that you have nothing but a crappy slippery-slope argument here.

Quote:

The reason I ask is because I am wondering if either of you are capable of recognizing a pattern in all of this.

Once again: you couldn't recognize a pattern if it bit you in the ass, Okie. You just make stuff up and call it a pattern. But when the logical questions begin, you retreat immediately from the field.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Seriously cyclops, I have to question your honesty in this, or your capability to reason. When government health care takes over, rationing becomes inevitable, which will mandate the grading of which patients should we spend money on and which ones should we not spend it on, and how soon, etc. George has repeatedly pointed out this total and complete common sense fact, which you continue to deny. You are either too devoted to blindly following a central planned government or you are just incapable of grasping the obvious.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that you and your ilk cannot be convinced by discussion, but that instead you must be defeated at the ballot box if there are still enough common sense citizens left in this country to do it.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

It's okay for okie to ask leading questions that are intended to further his rhetoric that has no basis whatsoever - except for his imaginary mind that goes into tangents without control or reason.

He doesn't answer our questions that are usually in response to his postings, because he can't. A loser by any definition.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Seriously cyclops, I have to question your honesty in this, or your capability to reason. When government health care takes over, rationing becomes inevitable,

Rationing ALREADY exists and ALREADY is inevitable. We simply ration according to who has the most money to pay for services. This works out great for those with money and shitty for everyone else, especially when the **** hits the fan.

And yes. Your argument is, once again, a Slippery Slope fallacy. Can you understand this simple fact? Do you even know what a Slippery Slope fallacy is?

Quote:

which will mandate the grading of which patients should we spend money on and which ones should we not spend it on, and how soon, etc. George has repeatedly pointed out this total and complete common sense fact

For god's sake - how many times have I told you not to ever use the words 'common sense' with regards to yourself? We ALREADY DO THIS. This ALREADY HAPPENS.

Quote:

which you continue to deny. You are either too devoted to blindly following a central planned government or you are just incapable of grasping the obvious.

You can be a real ******* idiot sometimes.

Can you point to the part of any legislation passed or proposed by the Democrats which has anything to do with what you say? I bet you cannot. Instead, you just sling bullshit around and pretend that it's 'common sense.' Ridiculous. Your rhetoric isn't a substitute for logic and rational thought, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Did your mother ever wash your mouth out with soap? If not, she should have, and maybe you would have been able to carry on a decent conversation fit for adults today. Surely you should know that only folks with no valid reasoning commonly resort to your mode of speech.

2 Replies

@okie,

That's about as stupid a question coming from a dummy with no ability at common sense or logic.

Are you still in grade school?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Did your mother ever wash your mouth out with soap? If not, she should have, and maybe you would have been able to carry on a decent conversation fit for adults today. Surely you should know that only folks with no valid reasoning commonly resort to your mode of speech.

Complaining about my speech is a poor substitute for actual facts and logic, Okie.

I challenge you to present some evidence to support your position, or admit that the entire 'death panel' slur was bullshit, made up by right-wing politicians, specifically to rile up people exactly like yourself. If you consider yourself to be an adult, try arguing a subject at an adult level.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Naw, he wants to talk about your mother washing your mouth out with soap. Elementary, my dear Watson.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Did your mother ever wash your mouth out with soap? If not, she should have, and maybe you would have been able to carry on a decent conversation fit for adults today. Surely you should know that only folks with no valid reasoning commonly resort to your mode of speech.

Complaining about my speech is a poor substitute for actual facts and logic, Okie.

Manner of speech does indicate ones command of facts and reason, cyclops, so I simply point out that your resort to gutter language is actually betraying your otherwise potential for cogent reasoning and civil discussion of evidence and facts.

Quote:

I challenge you to present some evidence to support your position, or admit that the entire 'death panel' slur was bullshit, made up by right-wing politicians, specifically to rile up people exactly like yourself. If you consider yourself to be an adult, try arguing a subject at an adult level.
Cycloptichorn

I think George has already offered you evidence. Of course anyone with any common sense would recognize that the legislative language would never have used the term "death panel." Of course that would be political suicide, and even Democrats and Obama knew that. Similarly, if you are able to grasp the concept, consider the fact that the Greeks did not announce to the city of Troy that they had placed a force of 30 men inside the wooden horse, which would later that night creep out of the horse to open the gates of the city to their fellow Greek soldiers to then enter, plunder, and destroy the city.

It is up to us, cyclops, to use common sense and logic to see the true and likely effects of central planning by any government bureaucracy. Surely you could admit that history itself has proven the fact that central planning leads to rationing, and that rationing must be determined based upon various attributes of what is being rationed and who it is being rationed to. If you choose to ignore the realities of it, I cannot help you, and I will not convince you, just as George will not convince you. Nor will Sarah Palin or any other conservative. That is why we have elections, to see how many people choose to believe one opinion or another. As I have already said, I increasingly see the real job for conservatives is perhaps not to convince liberals, but to defeat them at the ballot box.

3 Replies

@okie,

Your manner of speech leaves much to be desired; it lacks content, logic, common sense, and evidence.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Cicerone appeard to want to restrict the matter categorically to campaign promises. That is absurd.

Well if you want to expand it to legislation completed, it would still make Obama one of the most successful Presidents.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

[Rationing ALREADY exists and ALREADY is inevitable. We simply ration according to who has the most money to pay for services. This works out great for those with money and shitty for everyone else, especially when the **** hits the fan.

Cycloptichorn

This is certainly true. Those with more income or resources often buy more of everything and in better quality (or at least higher price). That's how we stimulate individual initiative, creativity, entreprenurial risk-taking, the thirst for education and new dicoveries - and all the other elements of our collective economic advancement. So far it has worked to provide even relatively poor Americans a better material lifestyle than almost everyone else in the world.

Those who have sought more "equitable" distribution of goods through central authoritarian distribution of resources and production have, in almost all cases, ended up producing only equal poverty and the loss of individual freedom. There are a few examples of fairly successful middle roads here, but even there most of the countries involved are now having a very hard time of it with respect to generating the economic wealth required to sustain the benefits their citizens have come to feel they are entitled to getting.

Are you suggesting that there are new ways that will overcome the rather dismal examples of the recent past with respect to authoritarian management of economics and resources?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:

Cicerone appeard to want to restrict the matter categorically to campaign promises. That is absurd.

Well if you want to expand it to legislation completed, it would still make Obama one of the most successful Presidents.

I provided a rather clear and I believe very reasonable definition of success in this area, as well as my assessment of Obama's standing relative to it. You may or may not agree with it as you wish. Otherwise go quibble with someone else.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I see a list of things you want to use to judge Presidents by but I don't see where you applied them to Obama. Can you show me where you applied them to Obama? Your opinion about the respect Obama gets isn't an assessment. It's an opinion supported by nothing.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

... Your opinion about the respect Obama gets isn't an assessment. It's an opinion supported by nothing.

As is yours.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know