I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry => Topic started by: M3Riddler on June 30, 2009, 04:01:04 PM
-
Obama = socialism, more taxes, government telling you what you can and cannot do.
Universal Healthcare = death of private insurance = more people needing governments universal healthcare = less specialized Dr's = Waiting for appointments/treatments/procedures = more taxes to pay for something the government doesnt have money for now.
They need to fix the current medicare program and save 20-30 billion per year instead of creating something else.
Anything the government gets their hands on, they seem to ruin. Just look at what is happening now.
Check out other discussions on
www.homedialysiscentral.org
www.nxstageusers.com
www.davita.com
-
Why haven't you introduced yourself?
-
All Obama is about is power for him and his leftist friends.
His most recent in saying the coop that ousted Manuel Zelaya in Honduras was illegal bolsters that point. Clearly obama not knowing what he is talking about.
Zelaya was a leftest individual that tried to violate the Honduras Constitution and change it to keep power for himself. This was despite the fact that the Honduras Constitution limits terms to one and forbids that clause from being changed.
Obama talks about democracy and Honduras. The coop was the highest form of democracy shown when a president tries to become a dictator the government stepped forth and removed him!
-
All Obama is about is power for him and his leftist friends.
His most recent in saying the coop that ousted Manuel Zelaya in Honduras was illegal bolsters that point. Clearly obama not knowing what he is talking about.
Zelaya was a leftest individual that tried to violate the Honduras Constitution and change it to keep power for himself. This was despite the fact that the Honduras Constitution limits terms to one and forbids that clause from being changed.
Obama talks about democracy and Honduras. The coop was the highest form of democracy shown when a president tries to become a dictator the government stepped forth and removed him!
I had no idea you were a Honduran constitutional hobbyist. What do you make of the coup's move yesterday to strip the Honduran people of five constitutional rights? Gone are:
1. The right to protest.
2. Freedom in one's home from unwarranted search, seizure and arrest.
3. Freedom of association.
4. Guarantees of rights of due process while under arrest.
5. Freedom of transit in the country.
So we shouldn't worry about that? You're saying the true threat was from the former president's push for a VOTE on a nonbinding resolution.
Sheesh. Give me a break.
-
:rofl;
So what far left site did you pull that from? Huffington?.... Democrat Underground?
:rofl; They are pissed that one of their own got tossed from office.
You seem to ignore that even members of his own party were upset with his actions of trying to take the country toward "Chavismo". The model of Socialism that the nutjob Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is advocating.
In fact it is Roberto Micheletti who is the interim president picked to rule by the majority of their Congress and he is from the same party and was in fact an ally of the former president until he tried to take the country down that path.
Even Reuters states that Micheletti is seen as a stabilizing influence.
But back to those rights
The decree only applies at night doenst it?
So in fact its not all that different to the US when State of Emergencys are declared or even the times when Martial Law has been declared now is it!
-
When an American president agrees with The likes of Chavez and the Castro brothers and sees things there way one has to give pause and wonder.
It seems or looks like Obama is sticking up for a man who wants total control and the ability to govern forever like Ahminijad is doing , while he didnt say much when a true democracy was trying to be brought forth in Iran by the YOUNG people who dont have the sever hate for Americans as the current administration does.
-
When an American president agrees with The likes of Chavez and the Castro brothers and sees things there way one has to give pause and wonder.
It seems or looks like Obama is sticking up for a man who wants total control and the ability to govern forever like Ahminijad is doing , while he didnt say much when a true democracy was trying to be brought forth in Iran by the YOUNG people who dont have the sever hate for Americans as the current administration does.
Since the 192-nation General Assembly voted by acclamation to condemn the coup it is accurate to say in this case America Venezuela and Cuba (and every other nation in the world) agree. Wouldn't it be cause for pause and wonder if the US disagreed with Australia, Canada, the UK ... ?
Central and South America have a long history of coups which is why no one can be in favor of their return. Having a vote on a nonbinding resolution is anti-democratic, while a military coup is to be celebrated as the height of democracy. That doesn't make any sense.
Every constitution has provisions for amendments, democracies can democratically rewrite their constitution. I can see why the Honduran oligarchs were against change that would disadvantage them; it's harder to see why the American political right has decided to be pro coup.
-
:rofl;
So what far left site did you pull that from? Huffington?.... Democrat Underground?
I've been reading The Field by Al Giordano on the Narco News site http://narconews.com/
He helpfully embeds local video in his posts Day Three: Democracy Held Hostage in Honduras (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/day-three-democracy-held-hostage-honduras) I thought the coup directed violence was only suppose to happen at hight?
-
Speaking for myself im not pro Coup by any means.
But it is better then the alternative IMO.
He isnt asking for a vote to extend his reign he is or was trying to make it law without a vote. To be a dictator like Chavez or Castro to rule with disregard to what the democratic people wanted. More or less a takeover.
If the people dint stand up who will?? The majority Vast majority didn't want him to have these powers. This is democracy at is best. Or do you think they should have just laid back and became a controlled country. Where the president can take over banks, declare himself owner of large car companies and make legislation and laws that none will read.
-
Speaking for myself im not pro Coup by any means.
But it is better then the alternative IMO.
He isnt asking for a vote to extend his reign he is or was trying to make it law without a vote. To be a dictator like Chavez or Castro to rule with disregard to what the democratic people wanted. More or less a takeover.
If the people dint stand up who will?? The majority Vast majority didn't want him to have these powers. This is democracy at is best. Or do you think they should have just laid back and became a controlled country. Where the president can take over banks, declare himself owner of large car companies and make legislation and laws that none will read.
How about some links to back your assertions?
Weird how the coup supporters are a bunch of people from the oligarch class - they are a small minority in Honduras but they are a majority among the Honduran diaspora (at least the diaspora that read blogs and leave comments)
-
Weird how the coup supporters are a bunch of people from the oligarch class - they are a small minority in Honduras but they are a majority among the Honduran diaspora (at least the diaspora that read blogs and leave comments)
Oligarchy class.
:rofl;
Hmm except his own party isnt even supporting him, the Military, nor the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Honduras gave the order to the military to detain Zelaya. Later the Congress removed him from power and named the Congressional Leader to power.
So despite the false claims by some, including obama, this "coup" was indeed democratic.
It was Zelaya who was trying to violate the Constitution and the checks and balances of the country acted accordingly.
The fact of the matter was the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that what Zelaya wanted to do was illegal because it flouted the Honduras Constitution's own ban on such referendums within six months of elections. No means no.
Just as our military does, the Honduras military evidently swears an oath to uphold the Constitution.
The military upheld the Constitution when they refused to distribute ballots as Zelaya wanted done in his quest to violate the Constitution. Zelaya then fired the Chief of the Army because he did his job of upholding the Constitution.
Zelaya continued on his quest to try to retain power.
Thereby the system acted just as it is suppose to act when one tries to subvert the Constitution. The domestic enemy was removed from office by the government.
-
I've presented links here is another one Why Zelaya's Actions Were Legal (http://www.counterpunch.org/thorensen07012009.html)
Where are your links or are you suppose to be an expert on Honduran constitutional law?
-
I've presented links here is another one Why Zelaya's Actions Were Legal (http://www.counterpunch.org/thorensen07012009.html)
Where are your links or are you suppose to be an expert on Honduran constitutional law?
Posting a worthless link doesnt change the fact that its a worthless link.
No need to be an expert at all bill.
What part of the Supreme Court's ruling that the vote Zelaya wanted was ILLEGAL do you not grasp?
Are you trying to tell us that you know more than the Supreme Court of Honduras on such an issue?
What judicial evidence or authority do you have that allows you to overrule and dismiss that high Court?
-
cute neocon propaganda there.
-
I bet he thinks this!
-
How is it that the people who disagreed with Bush were un-patriotic, but the the people who want Obama (and presumably the country) to fail are Good Old Boys?
-
Who said they want Obama to fail? Or the country.
But i get your point it is a democratic double standard at its very best.
There are many photos of Bush dressed like Hitler and even of bush hanging from a noose. These were made by democrats and displayed proudly at most all events Bush went to. The dems were very proud of there handywork.
Sadly they whine like little babies and cry foul, racist, hate mongers, fakes ect ect when it is aimed at there party. And worse yet it isnt even barley being aimed at obama yet they still scream foul.
My only take on this is that either dems are just truly that stupid.
Have short memories or are just two faced sissies.
Please note i have many democratic friends, and there are many MANY dems who dont act like this. I am referring to the extremists who just like name calling and say we can do it but you cant.
-
At the time when he was pumping money into the banks, there were a few of those shock jocks who said they wanted him to fail, which would presumably have meant the banks and the country would fail.
-
Oh yes i think Rush Limbaugh.
He is but a big windbag. he is way on the right and says alot of things for ratings i assume.
There are jocks like that as well as TV personalities who like to go over the top and they are on both political sides.
Then again some politicians say things that are over the top and that is a different story. Nancy Pelozi comes to mind. Saying Americans who dont agree with Obamas plan are unamerican-fake-manufactured ect ect. This coming from the third highest powered person in the country.
I dont agree with obama on MANY issues. Cap and trade-bailouts for people who bought homes they couldn't afford-Tarp-cash for clunkers-healtcare.
All these things we will be paying for for many decades to come. Our children's children will be paying of these crazy spending spree bills.
But i dont want him to fail Nor our country.
These are strictly my points of view.
-
At the time when he was pumping money into the banks, there were a few of those shock jocks who said they wanted him to fail, which would presumably have meant the banks and the country would fail.
the problem is the word-'presumably'- just like the word 'assume'
they NEVER said they wanted the country to fail, they disagreed with Obamas policies, which they believe are not good for the country, and they hope they fail, which they clarified over and over again.
I think there are too many people on both sides of this fence using bits and bytes to make a point, when things are looked at in the context from which they were said a very different picture emerges, and that goes for both Rep. and Dems.
-
i kind of think the title of this thread is a hyperbole... or whatever you call it... help me English teachers.
-
i kind of think the title of this thread is a hyperbole... or whatever you can it... help me English teachers.
Unfortunately DW I think it represents the point of view of some not small number of Americans.
There is no doubt that people ascribed devious motives to the previous administration, questioned the previous administration's wisdom. But I don't remember the sense of menace that you see now. Were people suggesting that the tree of liberty needed some watering during the Iraq war protests, the immigration debate or the social security effort?
Right now people are being equated to Nazis if they are in favor of a public health plan - if you really believe this is Germany 1933 then what are these people thinking is their patriotic duty?
We have a long way to go as far as problems to be addressed. After healthcare comes entitlements. Next year you'd expect more serious economic reforms proposed both domestic and internationally. From the point of view of people who don't want anything to change and are generally suspicious of non Americans (and Americans who don't share their politics) and non American institutions e.g. UN, IMF, it's going to keep getting worse.
Throw in any acts of nature - pandemic, earthquake, hurricane - and people are going to be yelling about the Administration's actions, no matter what. Then if you look at the electoral politics of 2010 - retirements, trends, early polling - it is structurally going to be a tough year for Republicans.
With every good economic indicator the Democrat's agenda and electoral prospects strengthen, while the Republican's grow weaker. Electorally the Republicans must have the Obama economic plan fail, that's not the same as wanting the country to fail. The Republicans can tell themselves that it would be worth the short term pain if economic collapse brought them back into power but I don't think this face of the Republican party is sitting well with the American public.
-
Right now people are being equated to Nazis if they are in favor of a public health plan - if you really believe this is Germany 1933 then what are these people thinking is their patriotic duty?
At least that is not as bad as this Administration calling Americans terrorists because they were returning soldiers from war, Believed in the Constitution and its rights afforded the people and the States or pushed for immigration law to be enforced.
-
Right now people are being equated to Nazis if they are in favor of a public health plan - if you really believe this is Germany 1933 then what are these people thinking is their patriotic duty?
At least that is not as bad as this Administration calling Americans terrorists because they were returning soldiers from war, Believed in the Constitution and its rights afforded the people and the States or pushed for immigration law to be enforced.
Really? The Department of Homeland Security report? You're saying that DHS report is worse than the language being used in opposition to health insurance reform?
That report is looking prescient.
-
Really? The Department of Homeland Security report? You're saying that DHS report is worse than the language being used in opposition to health insurance reform?
That report is looking prescient.
Ohh I have no doubt you feel that way. I know it must scare the hell out of you that the American People are standing up and using their Constitutional Rights on this issue. ;)
-
Really? The Department of Homeland Security report? You're saying that DHS report is worse than the language being used in opposition to health insurance reform?
That report is looking prescient.
Ohh I have no doubt you feel that way. I know it must scare the hell out of you that the American People are standing up and using their Constitutional Rights on this issue. ;)
Political violence is not a constitutional right. The DHS threat projection said "White supremacists and militias are more violent and thus more likely to conduct mass-casualty attacks on the scale of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing," that's not their Constitutional right.
"All it's lacking is a spark," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090812/ap_on_re_us/us_militia_movement)
It's a dangerous game to create a situation that some Federal FUBAR operation (Wacko, Ruby Ridge) can spark a mass casualty event against Americans caused by Americans.
-
Political violence is not a constitutional right. The DHS threat projection said "White supremacists and militias are more violent and thus more likely to conduct mass-casualty attacks on the scale of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing," that's not their Constitutional right.
"All it's lacking is a spark," (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090812/ap_on_re_us/us_militia_movement)
The report said far more than just that and labeled millions of American as terrorists for their beliefs.
It's a dangerous game to create a situation that some Federal FUBAR operation (Wacko, Ruby Ridge) can spark a mass casualty event against Americans caused by Americans.
It was the government who set forth the dangerous operations that ended in the result of OKC, not the militias.
-
Whatever happens, if something else happens, I'm sure you'll say the government (or the assassinated person e.g. Tiller) deserved it this time too.
-
Whatever happens, if the government violates Constitutional Rights and goes out and kills innocent citizens, I am sure you will blame those the government killed bill.
-
Whatever happens, if the government violates Constitutional Rights and goes out and kills innocent citizens, I am sure you will blame those the government killed bill.
But it's OK if they're not American citizens?
-
But it's OK if they're not American citizens?
You tell me since its an open ended statement.
-
I've become confused about who thinks what in this argument...I was only trying to make the point that American's always seem to get up in arms about constitutional rights, but are only bothered about the US constitutional rights. Not so worried about the rights of citizens in other countries.
-
I've become confused about who thinks what in this argument...I was only trying to make the point that American's always seem to get up in arms about constitutional rights, but are only bothered about the US constitutional rights. Not so worried about the rights of citizens in other countries.
You often post with a similar vein of distaste for my country, and this post is very vague and unspecific towards whatever policy you are speaking of. Its just negative.
-
I've become confused about who thinks what in this argument...I was only trying to make the point that American's always seem to get up in arms about constitutional rights, but are only bothered about the US constitutional rights. Not so worried about the rights of citizens in other countries.
America fights battles to protect the rights of other countries all over the world.
-
You often post with a similar vein of distaste for my country, and this post is very vague and unspecific towards whatever policy you are speaking of. Its just negative.
Do you truly mean this Glitter? OMG I didn't realise that's how I come across. It's absolutely not my intention at all! I'm astounded that you think I'm negative to the US. I'll have to have a real think about how I phrase things. I love America. I love that you're all so patriotic (we don't do the patriotism thing so much), but I meant my question as one to make you all think about how it must be perceived when you go to war with someone else. If the situations were reversed and America was Iraq, wouldn't you feel that your constitutional rights had been trampled?
EDITED: Fixed quote tag - okarol/admin
-
Not sure comparing a dictatorship to a society that openly elects a leader is a proper comparison.
Iraq wasnt exactly know for having Constitutional Rights.
Unless you consider execution for speaking out against Saddam a Constitutional Right.
-
They have constitutional rights - they're just not the same as ours. We're still trampling them when we go into a country and insist that things are done a certain way. It's a difficult question of course, cos how much should you let be, and where do you draw the line. Sorry - I've made this get off topic. Back to Obama....
-
They have constitutional rights - they're just not the same as ours. We're still trampling them when we go into a country and insist that things are done a certain way. It's a difficult question of course, cos how much should you let be, and where do you draw the line. Sorry - I've made this get off topic. Back to Obama....
That is what happens when you break a cease fire.
-
I've become confused about who thinks what in this argument...I was only trying to make the point that American's always seem to get up in arms about constitutional rights, but are only bothered about the US constitutional rights. Not so worried about the rights of citizens in other countries.
I find it interesting to see where these threads go.
Hanify, I don't see you as negative to the US. Rather, I see you accurately stating a negative fact about the US.
Yes, we have a long history of trampling all over what I see as the rights of others. As a US citizen, one has rights "guaranteed" by the Constitution. If you are a noncitizen living here, you have no such protections. If you are another nation who has something we want, well then God help you. (Canada, watch out! Someday we're coming for your water.)
'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all "men" are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...'
To me, all means all, not just US citizens. But it seems we were just kidding.
-
Return to the topics. Did downfall of America start from Bush or Obama? For the conservative republicans here, were you happy under Bush administration during the last eight years? I don't like "tax and spend" approach, but I hate "deficit and spend" even more.
-
Here is a burning question for those of you who are so very good at looking things up. Legal aliens who are elderly come in to this country and immediately receive benefits thru Social Security. If they live in Ca., since they are also considered "poor" they also receive medical care for free. I was told by one person who was running as a city councilman, that that money comes from the "welfare" part of Social Security. What??? I am not a foreigner basher, but if the kids want to bring Grandma here, shouldnt they carry some of the burden of her care? I knew one family who drew close to $2000.00 per month, tax free and never paid one dime into our system. No wonder they are running out of money.
-
I've become confused about who thinks what in this argument...I was only trying to make the point that American's always seem to get up in arms about constitutional rights, but are only bothered about the US constitutional rights. Not so worried about the rights of citizens in other countries.
I find it interesting to see where these threads go.
Hanify, I don't see you as negative to the US. Rather, I see you accurately stating a negative fact about the US.
Yes, we have a long history of trampling all over what I see as the rights of others. As a US citizen, one has rights "guaranteed" by the Constitution. If you are a noncitizen living here, you have no such protections. If you are another nation who has something we want, well then God help you. (Canada, watch out! Someday we're coming for your water.)
'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all "men" are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...'
To me, all means all, not just US citizens. But it seems we were just kidding.
That is untrue. The fundamental civil liberties of the Constitution also apply to non citizens. There are certain things non citizens have no right to and that was set forth by due process as required by the Constitution.
-
Here is a burning question for those of you who are so very good at looking things up. Legal aliens who are elderly come in to this country and immediately receive benefits thru Social Security. If they live in Ca., since they are also considered "poor" they also receive medical care for free. I was told by one person who was running as a city councilman, that that money comes from the "welfare" part of Social Security. What??? I am not a foreigner basher, but if the kids want to bring Grandma here, shouldnt they carry some of the burden of her care? I knew one family who drew close to $2000.00 per month, tax free and never paid one dime into our system. No wonder they are running out of money.
You have to pay into Social Security for enough quarters to be entitled to benefits. If people haven't worked here or if they worked but did not pay into Social Security and Medicare then they can not receive benefits.
Medicaid is a different story. Medicaid, in California I think it's called MediCal, might cover someone no matter what their residency status. Tht is a state issue.
If you knew a family drawing 2K a month from Social Security that never paid into he system then you knew a family that was committing fraud.
-
I think you mistook what Jean said Bill.
I believe Jean is referring to SSI when she said they got benefits through Social Security.
Social Security runs the SSI program and one doesnt need to pay into anything to get it. So they could come here and get these SSI benefits through Social Security.
If on SSI there is a rule where people can get an automatic qualification to receive free Medicaid plus some States even supplement the SSI check.
-
Big Sky, that is correct. However, it used to be that if a family brought their elders here, they supported them. That is no longer true. I worked in assisted housing for 15 years, and saw the money they got. The one who drew close to $2000.00 per month was a man who married a woman who had, we think, about 15 children. And then, of course, he had a bad back. Hence this pocket load of money, since, even tho the kids were mostly over 18 never worked. There was one elderly woman who was told she did not qualify, so she appeared in public nude, and then did qualify. I have nothing against foreigners if they are legal, but I still dont know who is paying out this money, since they do get a benefits letter from Social Security at the end of the year, the same as we do.
-
It's a big issue, but when it comes down to it I think it shows that you have a society that is unwilling to allow human beings to be treated badly - no matter their situation. There's huge costs involved, but do you really want a country that would allow people to die because they were illegal immigrants? That's the kind of thing we look down on in other countries isn't it? What worries me more is the amount of money it takes to provide care. I mean, there's some really awful statistic that says it takes $10 to provide $1 of care. That's where I think the savings could be made.
-
Hanify, I do agree with you, it is the humanitarian thing to do and that is what America is all about. However, if Soc.Sec. is now going broke, wouldn't that be a part of the reason? They never pay in, but they collect for many many years. And that is hardly fair to those of us who worked our whole lives. Most of it is fraud, and evidently, there is no way to stop it. It just irritates the poop out of me to watch these people collect free money, sleep until noon, and then go out for dinner, and I can't do that all the time. WTH??
-
Social Security is not in danger of going broke anytime soon. Medicare is because the cost of the program has risen faster than originally estimated, and raising medicare withholding is politically unpopular. Some covered conditions, like ESRD, have increased faster than the workforce has, as well as live expectancy past the eligibility age.
The fix is to raise the age of eligibility , or to increase withholding. That's probably not going to happen.
-
Here is an article discussing some points of the Canadian system. One thing that is not well addressed is that of drugs. In Ontario we have a program (Trillium Drug) that subsidized drug costs based on income. As a transplant patient I certainly qualify but if I make tons of money (or my husband does) then my quarterly deduction is way higher than someone who makes very little.
Our system is not perfect, there are cracks, there are things that need to be addressed, changed, tinkered with, but from all I've read I see no perfection in the current US system either. BTW we used to operate in a very similar fashion to the US until Tommy Douglas came along.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health-care-abroad-canada/
-
It is not that easy for a non-contributed person to get social security benefits. Both social security retirement benefits and disability benefits all require work credits. What other benefits one can get from social security besides retirement benefits and disability benefits?
So far I heard here is SSI. What is SSI? Please read this from the social security web site:
"Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):
It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and
It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. "
So, SSI is not taking any money from social security.
For medicaid, I have seen some U.S. citizens who are very sick and with little money cannot get it. It may be a little easier for a poor woman with youth kids. But it is not for everyone.
I know it is easier to blame others in poor economic conditions. It is not a reason for social security collapse, if it does someday.
-
Thank you, finally an answer.
-
;)
-
At the time when he was pumping money into the banks, there were a few of those shock jocks who said they wanted him to fail, which would presumably have meant the banks and the country would fail.
the problem is the word-'presumably'- just like the word 'assume'
they NEVER said they wanted the country to fail, they disagreed with Obamas policies, which they believe are not good for the country, and they hope they fail, which they clarified over and over again.
I think there are too many people on both sides of this fence using bits and bytes to make a point, when things are looked at in the context from which they were said a very different picture emerges, and that goes for both Rep. and Dems.
"Presumably" was polite: what else do you think would have happened. A lot of banks would have failed, millions of people would have been bankrupted, there would have been a long depression. Possibly people like Rush Limburg wouldn't mind that - he's rich enough to ride it out - but a lot of other people would.
What is happening now is not good, but its a hell of a lot better than it might have been.
-
At the time when he was pumping money into the banks, there were a few of those shock jocks who said they wanted him to fail, which would presumably have meant the banks and the country would fail.
the problem is the word-'presumably'- just like the word 'assume'
they NEVER said they wanted the country to fail, they disagreed with Obamas policies, which they believe are not good for the country, and they hope they fail, which they clarified over and over again.
I think there are too many people on both sides of this fence using bits and bytes to make a point, when things are looked at in the context from which they were said a very different picture emerges, and that goes for both Rep. and Dems.
"Presumably" was polite: what else do you think would have happened. A lot of banks would have failed, millions of people would have been bankrupted, there would have been a long depression. Possibly people like Rush Limburg wouldn't mind that - he's rich enough to ride it out - but a lot of other people would.
What is happening now is not good, but its a hell of a lot better than it might have been.
My point was that Rushes quote was taken out of context- which he clarified over and over again- he loves our country and has no wish to see it fail- AND people on BOTH sides have taken an awful lot of things out of context for their own agendas.
I did not vote for Obama- but I was unhappy with the other guy too- I do think we don't live in a vacuum, and when a business fails because of mismanagement, it ought to pay the piper.
pre·sum·a·ble (pr-zm-bl)
adj.
That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pre·suma·bly adv.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
presumably
Adverb
one supposes or guesses; probably: he emerged from what was presumably the kitchen carrying a tray
just in case you didn't know-presumably is not a polite word- it is either an adjective or adverb- and it means a 'guess' and a guess is not a fact. You can presume to know the difference, or you can assume you know. just saying.
-
They should have let the banks fail. The FDIC would step in to insure peoples account and the government could have used the money to supplement the FDIC for those accounts.
Those banks lived by the capitalist system and should have died by it for their blatant screw-ups of trying to play the system for their own gain.
-
Theoretically, I agree. The problem in this case was that the FDIC was under funded because the Large banks had lobbied congress to get them to determine that the FDIC was over funded and no one had paid into the fund since 2003.
-
here's a thought... the main prob with the US political system is there's only 2 parties.. who control it all.. any other party that tries to put it's hand in gets rolled right over by being called (at the very least) fruit cakes and edits and right/left wing crazies.... they've got the country by the baws by polarizing everything.. just like racism is (supposedly) a white/black thing... hey wake up.. there's other things out there besides black and white and Republican and Democrat... our minds are too easily distracted.. want to take the public eye off sayyyy Benghazi?.... let's bring up a problem with the IRS.. no?.. how about tossing out something about ObamaCare?.. that should get John Q Public going on about something other than Benghazi.. and before ye jump in on THAT subject.. 'm just using Benghazi as an example... open yer eyes and see what's really going on the US is very rapidly going to hell.. i think (my opinion yes) if the WWII generation knew what was coming down the road they'd have not bothered to fight against Fascism