Are you hoping for Obama or a republican to get elected??
- Thread starter phncke
- Start date
anyone who thinks obama is doing change or anything that he promised to do are you dumb fucks and are absolute retards. i feel sorry for your country. i, myself, have purchased a wonderful helicopter that is ran off of lesiban blood. i have collected enough weak minded lesbian liberals to board, and fuel my ship. see you around d-bags
Well in a way were arguing from different sides of the same coin, in really basic terms Obamas plan requires you to have health insurance like car insurance for drivers in CA and other states, people need to get insurance from a number of packages that Obama has assembled after working with the insurance companies, so when you say the gov will completely nationalize healthcare eventually I dunno I dont think thats concrete enough to stand on and for the the million of Americans who dont have insurancce they would be forced to hand over dollars to insurance companies n thats what I mean by them having the power, its taking it out of the consumers hands and it putting it to the corporations or in your view the government
I think your argument kinda falls in line with well Obama bailed out GM so now there Government Motors or that Obama was personally going to run Solyndra
I think your argument kinda falls in line with well Obama bailed out GM so now there Government Motors or that Obama was personally going to run Solyndra
The moment you guys step back and realize that neither republicans nor democrats are the answer is the moment you begin to understand the U.S. political system. How retarded is it that you have to adhere to one of two political ideologies in order to become president? Since I've been on this earth I've heard nothing but complaining about what the last president did wrong and how [x] will make things right - it's a vicious perpetual cycle. FUCK ALL OF THEM. The entire voting process boils down to picking the lesser of two evils and has very little to do with what the candidate is willing to do, much less capable of. I would be inclined to vote for whatever cadidate represents an independant party if just to devalue the repub/demo position.
There are just as many arguments for a two party system as there are against it for example one feature of having a two-party political system in the United States is moderation. In order to win an election, both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party must appeal to the middle, finding common positions on many issues and gaining large numbers of voters as a result. This encourages both of the major parties in the US political system to be moderate, preventing either of the parties from shifting too far to the political right or left.
If you take any Demo or Repu candidate in any Presidental Election the last 20 years I can point to someone who also ran for president that same year, in the same party, that is left or right of whatever candidate you name, ya dig?
If you take any Demo or Repu candidate in any Presidental Election the last 20 years I can point to someone who also ran for president that same year, in the same party, that is left or right of whatever candidate you name, ya dig?
The two party system assumes that one of two ways is correct. Take a look around you - this country is in a terrible state and has been for some time, all the while we are bound by the same ideologies that have gotten us here. It also greatly limits any new ideas on how to approach the turmoil in this country. They say insanity is attempting the same thing over and over expecting a different result. These parties were not founded under the precedent of anything that ever worked.
My indifference towards the entire U.S. political system has become so great that I would literally vote for the candidate that can guarantee to lower gas prices.
My indifference towards the entire U.S. political system has become so great that I would literally vote for the candidate that can guarantee to lower gas prices.
Your committing the slippery slope fallacy when you say that more parties would create more resolution vs more gridlock, theres pros and cons to both, thats all Im sayin
I would disagree with you or maybe you would say Im agreeing with you, u said the two party system assumes that one of the two ways is correct, Im reading a book now that says the US has been in continuing crisis since JFK was shot and the problem is that both parties dont have the answers but the institutions put in place make it effectively impossible to hold one group accountable for the frustrations that the public is experiencing, but the idea that some third or fourth party is gonna come in and solve everything is just as foolish, they would become bureaucrats like everyone else
I would disagree with you or maybe you would say Im agreeing with you, u said the two party system assumes that one of the two ways is correct, Im reading a book now that says the US has been in continuing crisis since JFK was shot and the problem is that both parties dont have the answers but the institutions put in place make it effectively impossible to hold one group accountable for the frustrations that the public is experiencing, but the idea that some third or fourth party is gonna come in and solve everything is just as foolish, they would become bureaucrats like everyone else
*its apples and oranges player. a car is a man made machine one may or may not purchase, and by law one would have to have a government issued license to drive in the US, state by state. if there was no auto insurance, the judicial system would be clogged. at that, most people with property damage caused by an uninsured driver wouldnt be getting reibursed for their financial fucking. a small claims court victory by you doesnt guarentee payment from the defendant. all that for a privilege...a global luxery...a car. free healthcare, another global luxery, is already givin to you in the US. even if you aint a fucking citizen. you cant go get a penis enlargment if you aint uninsured, but if your having a heart attack or fall in battery acid, your guarentee health care. if your kid sounds like King George and is running a 105 temp, that child will get seen by a doctor. free of charge if your really broke or if you have money but know how to work the system. why would one think they are entitled to health "insurance"?
*Obama hasnt assembled any packages. he's only made restrictions. business killing restrictions that if givin to any other insurance industry, home, auto, property, travel, would put them out of business. and telling citizens they must, or be fined, purchase health insurance, when you already have healthcare. you wont be forced to give the money to private companies. governement issued insurance is cheaper. the governement insurance "department" wont have to worry about going out of business because of their own regulations. its tax payer money anyway. look at the USPS. Fed Ex or UPS couldnt survive that debt. but when its all the american people, you keep goin hard.
*my arguement has nothing to do with those. those are bail outs for individial companies in a givin industry. not stricter regulations on an industry while governement sets up shop. in your own SF they banned tobacco at drug stores and the classic Happy Meal. you really dont think the government over steps its boundries? if you believe in universal healthcare then thats fine. we already have that, but its fine. but this is not what this is. and its at a cost.
*Obama hasnt assembled any packages. he's only made restrictions. business killing restrictions that if givin to any other insurance industry, home, auto, property, travel, would put them out of business. and telling citizens they must, or be fined, purchase health insurance, when you already have healthcare. you wont be forced to give the money to private companies. governement issued insurance is cheaper. the governement insurance "department" wont have to worry about going out of business because of their own regulations. its tax payer money anyway. look at the USPS. Fed Ex or UPS couldnt survive that debt. but when its all the american people, you keep goin hard.
*my arguement has nothing to do with those. those are bail outs for individial companies in a givin industry. not stricter regulations on an industry while governement sets up shop. in your own SF they banned tobacco at drug stores and the classic Happy Meal. you really dont think the government over steps its boundries? if you believe in universal healthcare then thats fine. we already have that, but its fine. but this is not what this is. and its at a cost.
