As far as i'm concerned, Dems have this one in the bag, they just have flipping SHOW UP AT THE POLLS! The whole stereotype that the left will show up to protest, but then forget to show up to vote needs to die. For years now we've been seeing polls that say that the majority want universal health care, they want gays to have rights, they want the drug war to end, they want out of Iraq/Afghanistan, etc etc. But yet somehow the right has managed to stay in control and I think that's purely because the left habitually neglect to vote despite being vocal.
As much as I agree with Occupy Wall Street and the like, protesting that as a means of change pales in comparison to getting your damned vote out into that damned ballot box. Its really pretty frickin easy. I don't even wait for election day. Me and a buddy make a lunch hour out of it, we have a little ritual where we go to the election office and vote the day before the election and after we go to Popeyes chicken. The only problem is, I tend to vote left and he tends to vote right so we cancel each other out.
And hey, register to be a poll worker. Your boss HAS to give you time off to do it. Yes It's boring, and its a 12 hour work day, but in the end you get a nice little extra paycheck.
So, wait...the Roman government didn't give a shit about the sick and the poor, and that makes them liberal because...
I like that the answer to feeding, clothing and sheltering people is apparently a guy with supernatural powers.
Even if I accept the biblical depiction of Jesus as accurate (water to wine, mounds of fish and bread from a single of each, etc), well, where is he guys? I don't see anyone performing regular miracles, so I guess it's up to you, me and a large organized body of people who dictate the use of collected revenue towards various ends for the greater good.
We'll call them a "government", and they shall "govern" through a series of checks and balances.
Except when a bunch of them go batshit crazy.
Basically what I'm saying is that the GOP field is starting to make me believe in the 2012 doomsday predictions.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time. " - Gandhi (disputed source)
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I like that the answer to feeding, clothing and sheltering people is apparently a guy with supernatural powers.
Even if I accept the biblical depiction of Jesus as accurate (water to wine, mounds of fish and bread from a single of each, etc), well, where is he guys? I don't see anyone performing regular miracles, so I guess it's up to you...
K
BRB, studying watches with my father so that when I graduate from science school I can build, then throw myself into an intrinsic field seperator...
As far as i'm concerned, Dems have this one in the bag, they just have flipping SHOW UP AT THE POLLS! The whole stereotype that the left will show up to protest, but then forget to show up to vote needs to die. For years now we've been seeing polls that say that the majority want universal health care, they want gays to have rights, they want the drug war to end, they want out of Iraq/Afghanistan, etc etc. But yet somehow the right has managed to stay in control and I think that's purely because the left habitually neglect to vote despite being vocal.
As much as I agree with Occupy Wall Street and the like, protesting that as a means of change pales in comparison to getting your damned vote out into that damned ballot box. Its really pretty frickin easy. I don't even wait for election day. Me and a buddy make a lunch hour out of it, we have a little ritual where we go to the election office and vote the day before the election and after we go to Popeyes chicken. The only problem is, I tend to vote left and he tends to vote right so we cancel each other out.
And hey, register to be a poll worker. Your boss HAS to give you time off to do it. Yes It's boring, and its a 12 hour work day, but in the end you get a nice little extra paycheck.
I have an idea for a Dem ad that shows the OWS protests, protests in general, all of them kicking and screaming as loud as they can, with them being ignored by upper class citizens observing from balconies or windows, and the commercial is completely mute, and it says "if you don't vote, you don't have a voice."
As far as i'm concerned, Dems have this one in the bag, they just have flipping SHOW UP AT THE POLLS! The whole stereotype that the left will show up to protest, but then forget to show up to vote needs to die. For years now we've been seeing polls that say that the majority want universal health care, they want gays to have rights, they want the drug war to end, they want out of Iraq/Afghanistan, etc etc. But yet somehow the right has managed to stay in control and I think that's purely because the left habitually neglect to vote despite being vocal.
As much as I agree with Occupy Wall Street and the like, protesting that as a means of change pales in comparison to getting your damned vote out into that damned ballot box. Its really pretty frickin easy. I don't even wait for election day. Me and a buddy make a lunch hour out of it, we have a little ritual where we go to the election office and vote the day before the election and after we go to Popeyes chicken. The only problem is, I tend to vote left and he tends to vote right so we cancel each other out.
And hey, register to be a poll worker. Your boss HAS to give you time off to do it. Yes It's boring, and its a 12 hour work day, but in the end you get a nice little extra paycheck.
While I'm sympathetic to your message here, the problem is that the Left has no party, so it's hard to get us excited when what you're pitching isn't really what we want.
Democrats are moderate Republicans (Hard Right in real terms) and actual Republicans are just insane.
As far as i'm concerned, Dems have this one in the bag, they just have flipping SHOW UP AT THE POLLS! The whole stereotype that the left will show up to protest, but then forget to show up to vote needs to die. For years now we've been seeing polls that say that the majority want universal health care, they want gays to have rights, they want the drug war to end, they want out of Iraq/Afghanistan, etc etc. But yet somehow the right has managed to stay in control and I think that's purely because the left habitually neglect to vote despite being vocal.
As much as I agree with Occupy Wall Street and the like, protesting that as a means of change pales in comparison to getting your damned vote out into that damned ballot box. Its really pretty frickin easy. I don't even wait for election day. Me and a buddy make a lunch hour out of it, we have a little ritual where we go to the election office and vote the day before the election and after we go to Popeyes chicken. The only problem is, I tend to vote left and he tends to vote right so we cancel each other out.
And hey, register to be a poll worker. Your boss HAS to give you time off to do it. Yes It's boring, and its a 12 hour work day, but in the end you get a nice little extra paycheck.
While I'm sympathetic to your message here, the problem is that the Left has no party, so it's hard to get us excited when what you're pitching isn't really what we want.
Democrats are moderate Republicans (Hard Right in real terms) and actual Republicans are just insane.
If the tea party protest and movement can make the republicans crazy bonkers, I dont see why effectively swinging the OWS movement into votes could drag Dems to the left some.
PAD ID - 328,762,218
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
'I don't like Obamacare. I hate Obamacare. Obamacare sucks. But when I did it in Massachusetts, everyone loved it!'
I'm gonna be fair to Romney.
The crafting of the Massachusetts plan was done specifically for the state. It works for the state because it's based on the state's laws and regulations, etc. I think his position now is that while Obamacare did come up from it, it's wrong to assume the whole plan can work for all states everywhere, each state having different budgets available, etc.
So for that much, and ONLY that much, he makes sense. It works for his state.
But it's kind of weird to say that Obamacare is so obviously unpopular with everyone in the world, but in MA everyone thinks it's the bees knees. And coming from MA, I can say that having universal healthcare like that is really fantastic and was a total stress reliever when I was coming out of school and off my parents' insurance.
Well yeah it's weird. I won't argue that. His defense makes sense, but what it should lead into is "healthcare for the nation is harder to manage," not, "we shouldn't try."
And now we're hearing about Texas.
What about Massachusetts makes it suitable for universal health care? What other states would it work for? For what states would it be a bad idea? How would it work in Texas? Rhode Island? California? Idaho?
It just amazes me that no one is asking these types of obvious follow-up questions. Why do we let our candidates off the hook so easy?
The point isn't that it won't work in other states, the point is that each state needs its own tuned form of it because they have different rates of income, different population counts / densities, and all sorts of shit. Making a plan for a single state can address the needs better than a plan to cover all fifty states. It's a complication issue, not a deserves-it issue. :P
'I don't like Obamacare. I hate Obamacare. Obamacare sucks. But when I did it in Massachusetts, everyone loved it!'
I'm gonna be fair to Romney.
The crafting of the Massachusetts plan was done specifically for the state. It works for the state because it's based on the state's laws and regulations, etc. I think his position now is that while Obamacare did come up from it, it's wrong to assume the whole plan can work for all states everywhere, each state having different budgets available, etc.
So for that much, and ONLY that much, he makes sense. It works for his state.
But it's kind of weird to say that Obamacare is so obviously unpopular with everyone in the world, but in MA everyone thinks it's the bees knees. And coming from MA, I can say that having universal healthcare like that is really fantastic and was a total stress reliever when I was coming out of school and off my parents' insurance.
Well yeah it's weird. I won't argue that. His defense makes sense, but what it should lead into is "healthcare for the nation is harder to manage," not, "we shouldn't try."
And now we're hearing about Texas.
What about Massachusetts makes it suitable for universal health care? What other states would it work for? For what states would it be a bad idea? How would it work in Texas? Rhode Island? California? Idaho?
It just amazes me that no one is asking these types of obvious follow-up questions. Why do we let our candidates off the hook so easy?
The point isn't that it won't work in other states, the point is that each state needs its own tuned form of it because they have different rates of income, different population counts / densities, and all sorts of shit. Making a plan for a single state can address the needs better than a plan to cover all fifty states. It's a complication issue, not a deserves-it issue. :P
But the thing is for republicans universal health coverage isn't something they oppose on technocratic grounds (they really don't oppose anything on technocratic grounds). It's an objection to the ideal of universal health care at all. Which is how Romney's attacking Obamacare. Which is why Romney's defense doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "yeah, we shouldn't systematically kill all the poor. There'd be no around to clean up the mess!" Which is true, and not killing the poor is a GOOD THING, but you shouldn't be objecting to it based on technicalities... Especially when Romney already killed/insured all the poor in Massachusetts.
And yes, that metaphor is useless, but I enjoyed it too much to get rid of it.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I wonder how many 'once' Republican ideas have been used by the Democrats and are now demonized for just that reason. It's also funny how almost no one calls them on it.
'I don't like Obamacare. I hate Obamacare. Obamacare sucks. But when I did it in Massachusetts, everyone loved it!'
I'm gonna be fair to Romney.
The crafting of the Massachusetts plan was done specifically for the state. It works for the state because it's based on the state's laws and regulations, etc. I think his position now is that while Obamacare did come up from it, it's wrong to assume the whole plan can work for all states everywhere, each state having different budgets available, etc.
So for that much, and ONLY that much, he makes sense. It works for his state.
But it's kind of weird to say that Obamacare is so obviously unpopular with everyone in the world, but in MA everyone thinks it's the bees knees. And coming from MA, I can say that having universal healthcare like that is really fantastic and was a total stress reliever when I was coming out of school and off my parents' insurance.
Well yeah it's weird. I won't argue that. His defense makes sense, but what it should lead into is "healthcare for the nation is harder to manage," not, "we shouldn't try."
And now we're hearing about Texas.
What about Massachusetts makes it suitable for universal health care? What other states would it work for? For what states would it be a bad idea? How would it work in Texas? Rhode Island? California? Idaho?
It just amazes me that no one is asking these types of obvious follow-up questions. Why do we let our candidates off the hook so easy?
The point isn't that it won't work in other states, the point is that each state needs its own tuned form of it because they have different rates of income, different population counts / densities, and all sorts of shit. Making a plan for a single state can address the needs better than a plan to cover all fifty states. It's a complication issue, not a deserves-it issue. :P
The main concern with healthcare systems is cost-control and universal access; the easiest way to control costs is to pool risk and resources into the largest grouping you can.
A large company can provide healthcare at lower costs than an individual or a small business because it can negotiate with an insurance company to cover hundreds of employees at once. If 300 million Americans got together to do the same...
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
A large company can provide healthcare at lower costs than an individual or a small business because it can negotiate with an insurance company to cover hundreds of employees at once. If 300 million Americans got together to do the same...
They would still pay more because they would have paid taxes on the income they used to buy it. Whereas if they had received it from their employer, they would not have any tax liability.
A large company can provide healthcare at lower costs than an individual or a small business because it can negotiate with an insurance company to cover hundreds of employees at once. If 300 million Americans got together to do the same...
They would still pay more because they would have paid taxes on the income they used to buy it. Whereas if they had received it from their employer, they would not have any tax liability.
Depends on how the pool of 300 million is set up. If the money comes from pre-tax income, than they won't have any liability on it.
No, he said he wouldn't have any working in his administration. And then he applied for a bunch of waivers to have lobbyists working in his administration because supposedly nobody was a better pick.
Well to be honest, getting a nomination confirmation for anybody that has ever even spelled the word "liberal" correctly has been amazingly difficult. I don't have time to find the information myself, but I'm pretty sure several very important positions remain unfilled because every name floated has been immediately nixed.
No, he said he wouldn't have any working in his administration. And then he applied for a bunch of waivers to have lobbyists working in his administration because supposedly nobody was a better pick.
Probably not totally a lie.
It's the same issue with the financial industry. Anyone smart enough to be competant is smart enough to know working for Goldman Sachs or the like is where the real money is.
Posts
As much as I agree with Occupy Wall Street and the like, protesting that as a means of change pales in comparison to getting your damned vote out into that damned ballot box. Its really pretty frickin easy. I don't even wait for election day. Me and a buddy make a lunch hour out of it, we have a little ritual where we go to the election office and vote the day before the election and after we go to Popeyes chicken. The only problem is, I tend to vote left and he tends to vote right so we cancel each other out.
And hey, register to be a poll worker. Your boss HAS to give you time off to do it. Yes It's boring, and its a 12 hour work day, but in the end you get a nice little extra paycheck.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
I like that the answer to feeding, clothing and sheltering people is apparently a guy with supernatural powers.
Even if I accept the biblical depiction of Jesus as accurate (water to wine, mounds of fish and bread from a single of each, etc), well, where is he guys? I don't see anyone performing regular miracles, so I guess it's up to you, me and a large organized body of people who dictate the use of collected revenue towards various ends for the greater good.
We'll call them a "government", and they shall "govern" through a series of checks and balances.
Except when a bunch of them go batshit crazy.
Basically what I'm saying is that the GOP field is starting to make me believe in the 2012 doomsday predictions.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time. " - Gandhi (disputed source)
K
BRB, studying watches with my father so that when I graduate from science school I can build, then throw myself into an intrinsic field seperator...
Look, if you become Doctor Manhatten, all I ask is that you think of everybody and wear a fucking loincloth.
I have an idea for a Dem ad that shows the OWS protests, protests in general, all of them kicking and screaming as loud as they can, with them being ignored by upper class citizens observing from balconies or windows, and the commercial is completely mute, and it says "if you don't vote, you don't have a voice."
Yeah, don't be a naked misanthrope.
Fuck that shit, I'm out.
t(-_-t)
I guess you'll have to rely on collective action to solve your problems now.
While I'm sympathetic to your message here, the problem is that the Left has no party, so it's hard to get us excited when what you're pitching isn't really what we want.
Democrats are moderate Republicans (Hard Right in real terms) and actual Republicans are just insane.
If the tea party protest and movement can make the republicans crazy bonkers, I dont see why effectively swinging the OWS movement into votes could drag Dems to the left some.
The point isn't that it won't work in other states, the point is that each state needs its own tuned form of it because they have different rates of income, different population counts / densities, and all sorts of shit. Making a plan for a single state can address the needs better than a plan to cover all fifty states. It's a complication issue, not a deserves-it issue. :P
But the thing is for republicans universal health coverage isn't something they oppose on technocratic grounds (they really don't oppose anything on technocratic grounds). It's an objection to the ideal of universal health care at all. Which is how Romney's attacking Obamacare. Which is why Romney's defense doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "yeah, we shouldn't systematically kill all the poor. There'd be no around to clean up the mess!" Which is true, and not killing the poor is a GOOD THING, but you shouldn't be objecting to it based on technicalities... Especially when Romney already killed/insured all the poor in Massachusetts.
And yes, that metaphor is useless, but I enjoyed it too much to get rid of it.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
is she sending them a bill
The main concern with healthcare systems is cost-control and universal access; the easiest way to control costs is to pool risk and resources into the largest grouping you can.
A large company can provide healthcare at lower costs than an individual or a small business because it can negotiate with an insurance company to cover hundreds of employees at once. If 300 million Americans got together to do the same...
They would still pay more because they would have paid taxes on the income they used to buy it. Whereas if they had received it from their employer, they would not have any tax liability.
Depends on how the pool of 300 million is set up. If the money comes from pre-tax income, than they won't have any liability on it.
It didn't fly with the insurance lobbyists. Real people loved it (and still do).
Just one more reminder of who those fucks in Washington really work for. /sigh.
Occupy Insurance Lobbies...ists... I'm bad at this.
Probably not totally a lie.
It's the same issue with the financial industry. Anyone smart enough to be competant is smart enough to know working for Goldman Sachs or the like is where the real money is.