dayman

What they're going to put their self-regulating selves in jail? They're going to hold themselves accountable?

LOL you have been all but begging me to engage in what I considered at the time of your comment to be a typical grande ideologue discussion when I asked a point blank negotiation question on policy. But now I'm acknowledging that question and saying "go ahead, let us hear it." So...go ahead. If you demand a guess as to what you are getting at I would say maybe that by exporting and becoming more entrenched with other countries they rely on us and our own inflation/downfall becomes something they can't tolerate either? But I really don't know that's why I'm saying...go ahead. I don't even care I'm not an economist if you have something to say that refutes my impulse to think that our tax breaks should go to jobs coming in and not jobs going out then...by all means...flip me on that issue if you can. This is a discussion board.

First and foremost yes, it's the economy stupid. I do get that. But I've heard a lot of countless Romney surrogates basically answer questions about Romney's questionable foreign policy rhetoric by saying "Americans don't care about that" or "Americans aren't thinking about" and they're only thinking about their jobs. My one problem with this is that...I do care about that. And I'm an American. And I'm not here to bash Bush for a war I supported when he started it...but Iraq was a **** show. And while the housing bubble and investment bankers are probably to blame most...Bush wars all over are probably next on the list. That said...Romney/Romney Co. seems to go around blasting Obama on foreign policy while spouting nonsensical rhetoric himself/themself. And if you ever get any specifics out of him/them then...they end up sounding as though they are still saying nothing or they are at best Obama's advisers and they hate themselves (in that on rare occasion he they talk sense and it's the same) I mean...I know what a campaign is. I know it's not that specific. But aside from closing guantanamo...which by any neutral analysis proved to be politically impossible...Obama ran on ending Iraq, increasing Afghanistan, and killing Osama. Well...check...check...check... I know Romney was head boss man at Bain but the President doesn't exactly reign over the global or even national economy like Romney did at Bain in terms of control and the objectives are not purely profit but people. One thing the President does reign supreme over is foreign policy. So when I hear people from that camp saying that Americans don't care about foreign policy I wonder if they 1) recall the last decade 2) look at the world today 3) consider me American or 4) understand what the President is. I know this takes and anti-Romney slant...but it is sort of a legitimate complaint IMO about some of the stuff coming out of that campaign movement. This stuff matters and this stuff is the #1 thing the President does unilaterally. It's first on his job description. And the fact that I'm not sold and almost anything he's serving up is concerning to me...and I think if you are asking me to vote you commander in chief id deserves more than a "nobody cares about that shut up." Agree? Disagree? I'm a liberal douche?

As anyone will tell you it won't pass in the house. And as anyone looking for every creative way (and I mean that with admiration in all honesty) to destroy the ACA will tell you tax stuff must originate in the house anyway. So it really was posturing. Constant repeals of the ACA in the house is BS. So was this Senate move today.

Tasker if you have a problem with whatever the outsourcing bills was feel free to just come out and say it btw. Anyway I heard and interesting take on some of the money/politics dynamic the other day. Guy talking about what politicians fear is not so much lack of general funding as that will be there for established guys...but everyone is afraid most of all that someone will dump a few million in the month or so before the election to sabotage them. So they need to ready knowing that they have someone ready to "protect" them by countering if that happens with a few million in that emergency time to keep them from losing a contested election. So it become not only buying a politician...but the politician then actively represents interests BEFORE being bought to make sure they can be protected. It's like the mob. It's almost a protectionist mentality.

Just saying I worked my ass off too. 15 credit hours when in school for thousands of dollars a semester (not including living and factoring in some scholarship though not as much as some) plus about 20 hours a week (for the most part work study at 10ish dollars an hour) ... I was pretty busy working my ass off but it wasn't close to paying the bills. I'm not saying you are imposing your superior ways on me lol...I'm just saying I really don't see how there was any way to come pay for that. Basically I'm just saying you can't really work your way through most advanced degrees these days without substantial debt unless you have the mother of all scholarships or parents paying a huge portion of that. I know at one point it wasn't that way. But now it isn't. And I'm not saying people didn't take on debt in the past. But it's a different thing now. And politically it's coming...speak to the youth republicans. We're not welfare queens. We're educated working Americans and we got issues.

I just want to say that while this is in some sense admirable....I hope you aren't implying that those who do take these are bad. I'm probably (just guessing) a bit younger than you...but me and my girlfriend together have pretty high level education and it wouldn't be possible this day in age w/ out all that stuff. Paid TAs, Work Study (this is huge btw for anyone that's sort of old...people don't really pay interns anymore at least not most...this is the way people get experience a lot of the time you work for free for someone and the government pays you for the employer it's a joke) , loans....school is insane these days and we'll be paying for a LONG time. That said it's still worth it b/c we both got not only a piece of paper...but a non-message board education (and I love message board btw)...but they know people understand a real education is necessary and they charge more and more each year and could care less what the market looks like for young people this day in age. On that point, President Obama speaks quite a bit on and to a lot of young people this is basically the number one issue they face when trying to start getting on with their earning lives. Education? Check. Job? Check. Huge debt? Check. I'm not crying...and like I said it's worth it IMO so I'm not a "drop out and move on" guy who is against education...but the cost of education is ridiculous. No consumer is society is more ripped of than the student. I'm not looking for people to bail me out...but if that loan forgiveness got cut from 10 to 5...whoo boy...you would have my vote. /unnecessary off topic unprovoked rant

This fraud stuff is going tilt towards actual consequences sooner or later this is a really significant scandal towards that imo. And as a known drug dea....I mean known leftist on this board...the Republicans were much harder than the democrats IMO. Touche House GOP. I basically don't have a kind word to say about you for 2 years running...now I have one kind thing to say. Just thought I would post since I blast the House GOP constantly. Still probably nothing going to happen but...we'll see.

tomato can the anti-Libertarian? Is there even a word for you?

Probably with you on the latter. Transparency is good. But IDK if we can handle the truth...not in this political climate. It's sort of weird to basically say that out loud..."we shouldn't know"...but let's face it the entire world is a house of cards and w/ out the illusion God knows where we would be. Needless to say I might pay attention when late night commercials tell me to buy gold if this ever became reality.

I'm on sleeping pills falling asleep so hard to type. Just saying bad for sale and ownership the ridiculous guns.Best approach imo

It's a debate and I'm open to it. I pistol on your belt fine. 'shotgun in house fine. Automatic weapons not fine. Semiauto not fine. Hunting...protection...that's what guns do in our society.

Carry your pistol or whatever. Gangs will always be able to get their hands on those. And there are a ton of other weapons out there (I wonder why there are so many?) that they will have as well. In any event nobody is going to walk around carrying an assault rifle for protection to out arm a potential maniac. Stop selling them. And in my communist mentality, make them illegal. They can be used for only 1 thing and that's shooting up a ton of people and creating a **** storm. Let's start the process of making them impossible to buy, and as hard to get as possible. They're too dangerous. I haven't been reading the entire back and forth but if Joe is advocating gun bans all together he's hurting the cause just as much as nut balls who say arm away with anything. It's about reasonable people coming together and saying too much is too much. Protect yourself and hunt. The vast majority of Americans do not own, and do not have a problem preventing other people from owning...assault weapons. Bring back the federal assault weapon ban and empower the ATF to wage a war on overly dangerous guns. A gun that can shoot 100 people in a minute is no less dangerous than a huge bomb. The majority of Americans can agree on these points when the discussion isn't warped into an all or nothing "guns or no guns" pitch. The "guns or no guns" pitch is exactly what the gun lobby wants. The fact of the matter is their profits will go down. People buy less guns. They can't compensate buy pushing more dangerous guns to expand the product line and selling more guns to fewer people. It is the only reasonable approach.

Reasonable levels of firepower will always be with us. Unreasonable levels of fire power should be rooted out. /topic

Like I said in the post....w/ their own internal polls

Of course you have to poll as a campaign it's all you have to go on. I just don't think they're very accurate and in the context of the media citing this poll and that poll it's meaningless. If I were to really get a feel for the campaign I would look at money (which I know comes from the campaign poll anyway). If Obama is dumping money into Ohio it means it's close and he needs it. If no money is going into Alabama it means it's in the bag for Romney. Etc. Obviously swing states get money either way and other states don't so it's not exactly a science but all in all there just is no way to really know with any meaningful certainty. The best way for the common man to get a feel for things is to look at what is on TV...and all that will tell you is the swing states are close and the rest is not.

The polls are pretty retarded IMO. Whether they favor Romney or Obama they mean nothing.

It will come down to the debates and even more likely it will come down to what a few million people in swing states decide to do a few days before they go punch their ballot. I still think that toss up favors Obama but that's pure opinion. Romney could surprise me in the debates. And the independents voting the incumbent out IMO is nothing to rely on for Romney this go around but once again that is just my opinion historical analysis would disagree w/ me. All in all at this moment in time I would put it at 51% Obama, 49% Romney. And that's come straight out of my ass into your eyes and brain.

Fine by me. It still wouldn't prevent SuperPACs but I guess they would be less "powerful" and necessary. In any event, disclosure if the only remedy the constitution will allow w/ out an amendment. The democrats should have worked with McCain on teh Disclose Act and got the thing passed.

Ya Citizens United was 2010. The legislature actually and finally tried to reform some of the finance laws and failed in court. Hence, more attention. Not to mention more money than ever on both sides. Regardless of who is president in the future they now have to campaign and raise a billion dollars taking time away....and whoever is challenging has to do that same so it's bad for them (although they don't have to balance it with being President). I costs too much money to run for office these days. That's a problem. Mo money, nothing can be done about it = media attention.

You heard peeps from liberals and conservatives alike both before and after that ruling. Money in politics is a new thing people don't like? That's a ridiculous thing to say.

What's funny is the grey beard was doing the interviewing...and the guy being interviewed was talking about the industry changing itself anyway...something that is happening regardless of the ACA the ACA provisions just get Medicare in the game. So if by dorky commies w/ grey beards you mean dorky capitalists w/ clean shaves I guess you are right.

LOL. Stop going on retarded rants. Patrol cops in most jurisdictions don't carry them. That's just a fact. Obviously the department has them, and issues them to certain officers for use in certain situations. I'm glad you think of yourself as a semi-auto owning man under attack just trying to out arm the criminal syndicate who get limitless weapons direct from Russia (and there's nothing we can do about it lol). And I'm glad you would get into a knife fight with a retarded bum for $8. Congrats on your manhood. We'll just have disagree that there's nothing America can do to keep unreasonably deadly weapons off the streets. It's pretty obvious to me that we don't need ridiculous guns for sale at your neighborhood yahoo factory. I suppose I can understand why you feel the way you do...if I look at it from the premise that you think there are mobs of criminals ready to attack your home with automatic weapons...I don't think there are for me...and everyone I know that carries a gun isn't walking around with a semi-auto ready to get in an arms race with the Russians anyway so it won't help anyone in public. Either way I could care less about your opinion so stop posting like such a maniac. I get it. You want everyone to have the most firepower possible. It's a retarded position. But you can take it if you want.

Depending on the state you live in the law will vary but a whole different aspect of some of our inefficiencies are nursing laws. I only bring it up b/c it is tangentially related to the supply demand argument in some states. In a lot of states the nurses are allowed to do so little that PCPs cannot allocate very much of their time practicing at the "top of their license" which would help address some of these concerns.

I'm a free man it's my right. Actually it may be my states right IDK but either way go **** yourself crying lib