dayman

I could be wrong here...but who is saying Obama will lose the money edge? I know Romney pulled in a nice first month but I was under the impression Obama will out raise him by a good margin.

Look I'm not blind and I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to knowing what politics is. That said, the GOP let all that happen...much to Romney's disgust.

Meh I don't see many of those people anyway and I doubt this will sway him. Obama has been President for 4 years already...to me that makes the Rev. issue sort of moot. Just a waste of money to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case either.

Romney campaign would be retarded to bring up Rev. Wright. If I was Obama and Co. I would welcome them pouring 10M into something as retarded as that.

Well personally I really didn't bash President Bush when he was in office and for the most part I don't now. As for the last little bit you sound like an Adam Carolla podcast listener. EDIT: And I don't plan on bashing Romney if wins.

I do love you though Magox. Go Bills!

This is a good post to sum up the attitude of most conservative here and what they think about most liberals. More than anything else I see the conservatives on this board adhering to a staunch philosophy as if we live in a static world, where as many of the liberals are more dynamic in their economic view and see the budget issues as a question of timing. From one stand point the conservatives seem like idiots parroting talking points and talking about the 80s and general philosophy (as if it's all been figured out for all time) and hating government and preaching fiscal conservatism (except military and SS). From another the liberals have no responsibility, can't be trusted w/ a $20, don't understand the economy, hate capitalism, and will ruin this country with never-ending entitlement spending. As for things like the ACA a few of the more vocal conservatives (not all) are TOTALLY ignorant about what the Bill that they hate actually is, and that's just the bottom line with them. As for the social issues...honestly who cares about the Treyvon Martin case...then again I don't go in that thread so who knows what is actually being said whatever it is it's probably pretty boring...as for gay marriage it's just a matter of time and I think it's probably that same way w/ drugs too but just a lot more time. So it's all moot to me. Anyway the biggest divide in this country is age. And I think if we could see each other...it would be a little more obvious. LOl. That's the damn truth. But it reflects modern America IMO.

I mean I agree they can be somewhat useful early, definitely to show if things are going terrible. But all in all like a good driver I'm sure most are concerned about polling the highest on the day of the election. I don't think either campaign cares much about winning the polls today. If anything I think the polls are important to Romney to show it will be tight and to combat the few that still assume Obama will win handily...and to combat the idea that he's a terrible candidate who's own party doesn't even like. Then on the flip side I think Obama could care less about being behind so long as he doesn't fall too far behind. He's saving most of his campaign juice for...the campaign (which even conservatives agree he is good at)...and if anything showing a threat early can help him combat the fall in enthusiasm his political momentum is expected to eat. I mean if I were Romney I would want to be as high as I could right now, and if I were Obama I would want to create a sense of urgency among my supporters and wouldn't mind if that meant a few polls coming in lower than they could have been (for now). Plus one of the big talking points for Romney seems to be that Americans are pissed and hate this President so he sort of needs to poll well comparatively (the entire time)...where as Obama can sort of be presidential and eat a slump for the time being and then hit hard when the time comes. In any event...I agree they aren't totally useless but I really think more than anything else they are more tools of campaigns then they are indicators of campaigns success at this point. The closer to the election the more important they will become IMO. And of course, I have no experience in politics. The one thing I know is if I ran either mans campaign they would lose.

How do you feel about polls in general, especially this early. I only ask b/c you appear to pay a lot of attention to them based on the post.

LOL. No. It really is that way. The "white, over 40s" are not "better at putting up references" either (neither are the left necessarily). But the white over-40 thing is stupid anyway. Don't worry about that. Just participate and find out yourself. And remember if you aren't having some sense of entertainment out of it then you are doing it wrong.

Obvious gang-bang of right wing idiocy in most of the big threads. However, there are some people more left of center and not all of the conservatives are retarded/obnoxious. But all in all, absolutely this is a right wing board. But don't let that stop you from posting whatever you want here if you are thinking about it. And remember, it's not that bad. So what. And really I would say it's more accurate to characterize the board as "extreme anti-obama" than anything else.

Well there is no public option in the exchange so what it really was (IMO, he'll never admit it) was an outdated talking. Update your talking points already guys. As for there being less PCPs in the future, won't happen either way (my opinion). With or without Obamacare the industry is shifting and the demand for specialist services will decline while the demand for PCP will rise. This will happen as the pay structure changes (happening right now with private insurance companies independent of Obamacare) and the patients will be paying more out of pocket for the special services they do ultimately need (thus allowing the market to work like a free market, lowering prices etc etc). It's a slow process though but some of the reform is poised to have Medicare lead the way and possibly speed this up (but that would depend on Obamacare surviving). I see no signs of medical school enrollment falling right now, and I'm not sure I look at increased demand for PCP services long term equating to less PCPs long term. Just can't see it. Would be willing to listen more though...if there is something I missing (totally possible)

Ya but gay or not gay if you had a license to !@#$ people in the ass you would probably frame it and stick it on the wall no?

ACA talk in this topic too! Ahhh! Where have I been all your life 3rdnlng? Can you just explain your view here as well as you can?

...an 11 year old AMERICAN boy told me this stuff 6 years ago...

Nothing about what you just said sounds right. "Authority"

Willfully dense? When the federal judiciary tells Texas it can't prohibit dicks in asses, that's called authority. Stop bending over backwards to disagree with me. (pun intended)

Haha the answer is yes Tom. Dicks up asses is a protected privacy interest under federal constitution. They has some authority.

Certainly sounds like they have some "authority" over dicks up asses no? Federal approval..federal protectoin...whatever... Anyway I just jumped to the end of this topic...not trying to start any riff raff in this topic have no spare calories to burn on PacMan's thoughts on gays. Maybe his singing career but not this...

That or you could refer him to Lawrence v. Texas and just show that the federal government actually is concerned with dicks in asses.

I think you can look at the post you quoted and get all the answers you just asked for, save for maybe the last one. Should I drive you into a state of madness and say no to that? ...now that would be trolling... Also sorry to hear you have to stop responding to people who you don't agree w/. Hell I couldn't even post here if that was the case. It would probably be less eventful...

For one I'm not sure the law creates any new agency...but that's a small point I concede it will expand the roles of existing agencies anyway. The reason that I come off like a "freedom hating elitist" though is b/c the "freedom arguments" really are just political noise to me. It's partisan hurling of crap and yes it's done by the left and right depending on the issue. But "freedom" ... with nothing is more more often than not (not never) just a load of BS. Certainly if you use a general freedom argument then comparing ACA to MA law is not only relevant but it would be a logical crime not to. Now if the debate centers around legitimate discussion of law or policy then that is different. But just know it isn't freedom I hate, it's people defending what they call freedom.

LOL. Well I disagree that's all I can say. If the argument is one of general personal freedom as the good sir who posted that was making...then the conclusion that he will remove Obama for an official that is on the side of freedom doesn't make much sense when that same person enacted that legislation when he was governor. I said in the damn post you quoted to respond that questions of commerce clause, federalism, and the like are debatable and general claims of freedom are not. What we had there, was a general rambling about personal freedom which makes little sense.

Are you a free person by virtue of living in the state of NY? B/c as I'm sure you are aware the debate is about the commerce clause in the federal constitution (not about "freedom"). Forcing people to by health insurance is totally fine on the state level. Does that get you riled up too under the general concept of freedom? Well then you are working to elect a guy who did that! Questioning the commerce clause? Fine. Questions of federalism...ok as well. Questions of "FREEEDOOOOMMM!!!" Not really questions. You don't have some vague/general right "to be free" and that's the end of it. You aren't free in a million different ways. One of them may or may not include buying health insurance and that determination will depend on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's abilities under the commerce clause. As for just your right to not be compelled to buy a private good...there is no such federal law (as of yet anyway)...and there was no such state law in Mass when Romney did just that. Just screaming "freedom" and making the 3rd grade point that you make above over and over as if I cannot understand it isn't going to inform me of anything that may change my mind. I know you may not care, and I certainly am not trying to change your mind I can see that is pointless. But I do like to try and understand WHY you are so set in your logic...and screaming "freedom" doesn't do much to that end. Other than you think somehow this is drastically different than a million other things concerning your freedom already which it really just isn't... I would love to here you bash this concept on grounds of general "freedom" and explain how you are working to elect a man who will defend you b/c he feels it isn't freedom to have a mandate.