The First 2012 Presidential Election Thread

[DetroitPlanner]

There are 23 phone numbers that showed up on my caller ID over the weekend which suggest this may be the case. TRUE.

I guess I better get up to speed then. Is DeVos still running for Governor? Kilpatrick for Mayor?

[Mastiff]

Amazing. I know you are a bright guy, but you post something like that?

Yes. I posted it. This is what you did...



Tried to dance around the topic with red herrings and fell on your face. You didn't counter one single point of my argument. Thanks for dancing, we have some lovely departing gifts backstage.

[michaelskis]

Yes. I posted it. This is what you did...



Tried to dance around the topic with red herrings and fell on your face. You didn't counter one single point of my argument. Thanks for dancing, we have some lovely departing gifts backstage.

Those where points in an argument? Your kidding me right?

Well, to respond, if we go to a "requirement" system, where you you think that those people who don't have insurance right now will get money to have insurance? Additionally, where do you think that businesses that are just hanging on will get money to conver the new costs or fines?

Those people will still be without insurance, we will still end up paying for it in one way or another, and they will be worse off the before because they will now have extra expenses to deal with.... Oh and you and I will also have extra expenses.

As for the wife working in the ER comment, about 1/3 of the people who came during the middle of the night had not insurance. Of that 1/3, about a quite a few were homeless or were probably not US citizens. These people are still not going to go out and get insurance.

[Maister]

Those where points in an argument? Your kidding me right?

I suspect he's not. You never did respond to the logic in his argument. He spelled it out here:

Let me make it one more time and see if you wish to address it. In fact, I'll just use you as an example to make it simple, and define each point and my conclusion.

A) You aren't Superman, hence you have have the ability to be injured or have a medical issue.

B) Since you have lived for a time, you've either had an accident or medical condition that required the care of a physician.

C) Health services must be paid.

D) If you could not pay the bill, the cost was borne by others through the increase of fees to cover the loss.

E) As an average wage earner, you do not have the funds to pay for any expensive medical procedure out of pocket.

THEREFORE: Unless you have health insurance, and you had a major accident or medical issue, you would not have had the ability to pay the bill, and have harmed me financially.

Did he engage in any logical fallicies or arrive at an incorrect conclusion based on the premises he laid out? I for one would like to see you pick it apart point by point (and I believe it may be possible to do so without resorting to any red herrings or appeals to emotion). It would go a long ways towards convincing me your position is the 'correct' one.

[Hink]

As for the wife working in the ER comment, about 1/3 of the people who came during the middle of the night had not insurance. Of that 1/3, about a quite a few were homeless or were probably not US citizens. These people are still not going to go out and get insurance.

My wife also has a pretty good working knowledge of the ER. I by osmosis have a pretty good understanding as well. I won't argue your numbers, but every area is different. That isn't the point though. It provides the opportunity... good article about what the ACA is doing for the homeless.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nan-ro...b_1635419.html

I have quite a few reasons to dislike the ACA. I have numerous financial reasons to be against it, but I do see the value in providing healthcare to those who can't afford it, and the current system we have in place costs me more than I believe the ACA will. No one knows if that will be the case though.... because again, the exchanges are not set up...

[michaelskis]

Let me make it one more time and see if you wish to address it. In fact, I'll just use you as an example to make it simple, and define each point and my conclusion.

A) You aren't Superman, hence you have have the ability to be injured or have a medical issue.

B) Since you have lived for a time, you've either had an accident or medical condition that required the care of a physician.

C) Health services must be paid.

D) If you could not pay the bill, the cost was borne by others through the increase of fees to cover the loss.

E) As an average wage earner, you do not have the funds to pay for any expensive medical procedure out of pocket.

THEREFORE: Unless you have health insurance, and you had a major accident or medical issue, you would not have had the ability to pay the bill, and have harmed me financially.

A) Your right, however I also take care of my self, eat healthy, and avoid doing stupid things that will put me in the hospital.
B) Yes, you are correct. I also go to see my doctor twice a year for check-ups.
C) I did pay the bill as I have insurance.
D) No. We are looking at my my wife coming home to be a full time stay at home mom in the next two years. As such, I found out that we could afford insurance for our family out of pocket. Granted I make a bit above the average in the US, but after some looking, I found insurance that I could cover. We also have a substantial health savings account that is way more than what we need at this point in time. Keep in mind my oldest has to go to a specialist on occasion for some preexisting health conditions.

As I noted before, it is stupid not to have insurance. But to have governmental requirements for us to buy a product, that is wrong. Same with home insurance or flood insurance. If you don't have a mortgage, you are not required to have it. But it is stupid not to have it. Same with renters insurance, life insurance, and several other things.

So based on your logic, lets run though this:

A) Most American's don't eat healthy and it causes medical issues.
B) Vegetables have the needed vitamins, minerals, and anti-oxidants
C) If we eat more veggies and less pizza, it is likely (but not proven) to improve our health.
D) If the government requires us to eat so many veggies per weeks, it will reduce the obesity epidemic, heart disease, and diabetes issues in the US.

THEREFORE, it is 100% ok for the government to not only mandate that we should eat 10 to 15 servings of veggies per day, or we will be taxed. I would venture to bet that you don't currently eat 10 to 15 servings of veggies in a day. Will it help the US... yes, it will. But is it wrong for the Federal Government to mandate it... yes it is.




I would also love to know why members of the State Department were able to watch the Benghazi attacks in real time thanks to two drones (which apparently took time to get there and were launched before the attacks began), yet Obama took two weeks to call it a terrorist attack. Leading up to it, he also skipped out of his security meetings electing to have the info pushed to his iPad. Then to have a "Stand Down" notice issued for the military that we did have on the ground. More people would be dead if one solder did not disobey the order. Sounds like Obama does not have is house in order.

[Mastiff]

Those where points in an argument? Your kidding me right?

Mmmmm nope. Why doesn't it surprise me you can't examine a fact pattern and a conclusion, dissect it, and refute one or more of the facts or the veracity of the conclusion?

Well, to respond, if we go to a "requirement" system, where you you think that those people who don't have insurance right now will get money to have insurance? Additionally, where do you think that businesses that are just hanging on will get money to conver the new costs or fines?

Again, you're doing the exact same thing as before, with the same result. I didn't discuss either of these issues, and we can certainly argue them, but I'm trying to nail down one particular idea. I mean, do I have to write this on a note with a "yes" or "no" at the bottom that says "circle one" to get a response?

Here it is again:

Unless you have health insurance, and you had a major accident or medical issue, you would not have had the ability to pay the bill, and have harmed me financially.

Yes No

(Circle one)

Those people will still be without insurance, we will still end up paying for it in one way or another, and they will be worse off the before because they will now have extra expenses to deal with.... Oh and you and I will also have extra expenses.

Maybe, maybe not. Lay out a fact pattern for me to examine on how you drew this conclusion. It's preferable to answer my question first, however, because if we disagree on that point, this one is moot.

As for the wife working in the ER comment, about 1/3 of the people who came during the middle of the night had not insurance. Of that 1/3, about a quite a few were homeless or were probably not US citizens. These people are still not going to go out and get insurance.

More anecdotal information. No use in an argument...

C) I did pay the bill as I have insurance.

No no... you can't just change one of the facts. That was an "if / then" statement, and you just changed it to suit you.

[Raf]

In honor of spitting in the face of the electoral college, I may vote for Mitt Romney, simply because a) I live in a solidly blue state and b) I can't stand the fact that this election has focused on 3 or 4 swing states, with both candidates coming to my fair state simply to raise money or address issues that are in the forefront in my region

[Veloise]

... the wife working in the ER comment, about 1/3 of the people who came during the middle of the night had not insurance. Of that 1/3, about a quite a few were homeless or were probably not US citizens. These people are still not going to go out and get insurance.

What about the other hours of ER shifts? What was the distribution on insurance for those clients?

Does the ER staff get paid for their work on uninsured patients, or are they paid at a reduced rate?

What does "probably not US citizens" mean in terms of healthcare usage? How about HIPPA?

I sometimes go to Meijer's in the later evening hours, when there's a high proportion of folks purchasing adult beverages. Ergo sum, your typical Meijer customer is a boozer.

No?

[Blide]

I would also love to know why members of the State Department were able to watch the Benghazi attacks in real time thanks to two drones (which apparently took time to get there and were launched before the attacks began), yet Obama took two weeks to call it a terrorist attack.

Pretty funny that CBS has been sitting on an interview with the President from the day after the attack that debunks this whole line of attack.

[imaplanner]

In honor of spitting in the face of the electoral college, I may vote for Mitt Romney, simply because a) I live in a solidly blue state and b) I can't stand the fact that this election has focused on 3 or 4 swing states, with both candidates coming to my fair state simply to raise money or address issues that are in the forefront in my region

I don't watch much tv ever, but I watched a bunch this weekend and there were a bunch of vote for Romney ads - here in a very very liberal portion of northern cali. I haven't seen any Obama ads here.

[Mastiff]

A) Most American's don't eat healthy and it causes medical issues.
B) Vegetables have the needed vitamins, minerals, and anti-oxidants
C) If we eat more veggies and less pizza, it is likely (but not proven) to improve our health.
D) If the government requires us to eat so many veggies per weeks, it will reduce the obesity epidemic, heart disease, and diabetes issues in the US.

THEREFORE, it is 100% ok for the government to not only mandate that we should eat 10 to 15 servings of veggies per day, or we will be taxed. I would venture to bet that you don't currently eat 10 to 15 servings of veggies in a day. Will it help the US... yes, it will. But is it wrong for the Federal Government to mandate it... yes it is.

A) Yes
B) Yes
C) I'd have to think this is true, proven or not.
D) If I'd take issue with any fact, it'd be this one. I can eat veggies on pizza, or eat veggies AND pizza. But it could certainly help.

Your conclusion, while practical on a personal level, doesn't rise to a public interest. I don't have to be protected from fat diabetics with bad hearts, nor do you. What we lose in health care early on will certainly be recouped when they keel over dead at 65.

I would also love to know why members of the State Department were able to watch the Benghazi attacks in real time thanks to two drones (which apparently took time to get there and were launched before the attacks began), yet Obama took two weeks to call it a terrorist attack. Leading up to it, he also skipped out of his security meetings electing to have the info pushed to his iPad. Then to have a "Stand Down" notice issued for the military that we did have on the ground. More people would be dead if one solder did not disobey the order. Sounds like Obama does not have is house in order.

Uh, come from left field much?!

[Raf]

I don't watch much tv ever, but I watched a bunch this weekend and there were a bunch of vote for Romney ads - here in a very very liberal portion of northern cali. I haven't seen any Obama ads here.

where they are on local teevee or on cable/satelite channels? I Mitt/Obama ads all over certain networks. I am just tired of our hotly contested house race ads. It's every 30 seconds between Lois Capps (D) our incumbent and Able Maldonado (R). SuperPACs have poured a ton of cash in this election has it was a "toss up". I can't stand Lois Capps, but even worse is Able (our former Lt. Governor). I might sit this one out.

[Suburb Repairman]

for some reason some SuperPACs have taken to airing anti-Obama ads in Texas. Of all of the Romney safe states, this has to be among the safest. Don't know why they would be wasting money here.

[dw914er]

In honor of spitting in the face of the electoral college, I may vote for Mitt Romney, simply because a) I live in a solidly blue state and b) I can't stand the fact that this election has focused on 3 or 4 swing states, with both candidates coming to my fair state simply to raise money or address issues that are in the forefront in my region

I think I'll vote third party for the same reason. California has been consistently a blue state, but my district is very red. My vote won't upset either of these outcomes nor cause a situation I'm adamantly opposed to. I just hope I can starve off some of the radical candidates competing at the local level.

[Hink]

In honor of spitting in the face of the electoral college, I may vote for Mitt Romney, simply because a) I live in a solidly blue state and b) I can't stand the fact that this election has focused on 3 or 4 swing states, with both candidates coming to my fair state simply to raise money or address issues that are in the forefront in my region

I wish we weren't a swing state... not only does it clog up our roadways (it took me an extra hour to get home the other day because of the damn motorcade), but I haven't seen a beer commercial in two months.

I want a frog to sell me alcohol. Now.

[imaplanner]

I would also love to know why members of the State Department were able to watch the Benghazi attacks in real time thanks to two drones (which apparently took time to get there and were launched before the attacks began), yet Obama took two weeks to call it a terrorist attack. Leading up to it, he also skipped out of his security meetings electing to have the info pushed to his iPad. Then to have a "Stand Down" notice issued for the military that we did have on the ground. More people would be dead if one solder did not disobey the order. Sounds like Obama does not have is house in order.

Mskis- The CIA and state department have stated that this is not true. That there was no stand down order and that they did in fact send help immediately. Yet Fox News and the right-wing machine keeps repeating these lies. Outright lies. Proven lies. Disgusting lies. Shame on you for repeating known falsehoods.

[michaelskis]

Since the election is tomorrow, and appears that many of the people in this thread, while very intelegent, still have a fundimentally different and unwavering viewpoint on what this country should be, even if it is in direct conflict with the intentions of the founding fathers, this is my last post in this thread. With the poles opening in less 20 hours, peoples mind's are mostly made up and nothing I say will change that.

So, with that said, lets see what President Obama says:



Or full speech so you see it is not out of text.













He has failed the last 4 years. What makes you think that the next four are any different?

Oh and in response to the health care mandate. I have posted it before, but I would venture to guess that this woman knows more about it than anyone in here.

Mskis- The CIA and state department have stated that this is not true. That there was no stand down order and that they did in fact send help immediately. Yet Fox News and the right-wing machine keeps repeating these lies. Outright lies. Proven lies. Disgusting lies. Shame on you for repeating known falsehoods.

Can you prove it with a non-bias source? Because I don't buy it.

[hilldweller]

Mskis- The CIA and state department have stated that this is not true. That there was no stand down order and that they did in fact send help immediately. Yet Fox News and the right-wing machine keeps repeating these lies. Outright lies. Proven lies. Disgusting lies. Shame on you for repeating known falsehoods.

Yep, it is a horrendous lie. Made more evident by the fact that Fox hasn't even provided one source to support this "stand down" order they have alleged.

[Mastiff]

...this is my last post in this thread.

Cool. I can quit playing Whack-a-Mole now.

[giff57]

Yep, it is a horrendous lie. Made more evident by the fact that Fox hasn't even provided one source to support this "stand down" order they have alleged.

Sure they did, it was "people on the ground" ...

[ColoGI]

Uh, come from left field much?!

That's not left field, it is "parroted lies from the Echo Chamber field".

[Raf]

Can you prove it with a non-bias source? Because I don't buy it.

Politco

NPR

[Mastiff]

Look! I can post Youtube clips, too!

[Hink]

I like that you complain of biased sources, then use a republican aspiring politician as your "support". Find an independent voice, and I will listen. I am sure I can find some crazy democrat that says one thing, and you have found a crazy republican that has a differing opinion. Let's look for an independent who doesn't have an agenda?