U.S. Politics - Page 683 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6821  
Old 02-01-13, 07:57
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Bam. Great description of the American welfare system.
Somehow I was waiting for you to say that.
Reply With Quote
  #6822  
Old 02-01-13, 14:47
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patricknd View Post
as long as they're not miltary style assault scissors. no one needs those
DHS training complete.

__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6823  
Old 02-01-13, 15:04
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,146
Default

Wait, what? I thought Obamacare was hugely popular now? I guess it's ok to check your principals and convictions at the door in DC. Not that that is any new revelation...

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...2.html?hp=t3_3
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6824  
Old 02-01-13, 15:20
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

What if Obama had spent like Reagan?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...t-like-reagan/

Quote:
Rather, these graphs simply establish a basic fact about Obama’s term: While deficits have indeed been high, government spending and investment has been falling since 2010. This is, in recent presidential administrations, a simply unprecedented response to a recession. Just for fun, I took Obama’s GDP growth, netted out the effect of government spending and investment, and then added the total government spending and investment numbers — which include state and local government — from Reagan’s first term. The result is a significantly better economy, with growth since 2010 averaging 3.2 percent rather than 2.4 percent.
Yep. Spending is the problem, in that we're not spending enough at the moment.

But things are slowly getting better.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...nt-report.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...n-january.html

Last edited by VeloCity; 02-01-13 at 16:24.
Reply With Quote
  #6825  
Old 02-01-13, 15:32
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RetroActive View Post
Homeland Security Tip: Fend Off Shooter With Scissors
http://xrepublic.tv/node/1984

No comment
Or we could just do what Britain and Australia did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...35d_story.html

And as a libertarian you must be outraged by this, eh Scott?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...0a3_story.html

Quote:
A legal shield written by Congress to benefit the firearms industry is posing unexpected hurdles for parents in Newtown, Conn., and victims of other mass shootings, who want to use the courts to hold gun makers accountable and push them to adopt stricter safety standards.

The law, approved in 2005 after intense lobbying by the National Rifle Association, grants gun companies rare protection from the kind of liability suits that have targeted many other consumer product manufacturers.
You can sue cigarette manufacturers, fast food outlets, oil companies, but you can't sue gun manufacturers because the NRA doesn't want you to have that right.

Or there's this, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/op...ion.html?_r=1&

Quote:
As busy as the gun lobby is in promoting macho myths about self-defense — stand your ground and outshoot the bad guys — it is no less dedicated to spinning myths for lawmakers to use as excuses to avoid enacting laws to deal with the shooting sprees that regularly afflict the nation. This was clear at the opening Senate hearing on gun controls this week, where Judiciary Committee members seemed to have largely swallowed gun lobby propaganda that the evidence shows the original 10-year ban on assault weapons was ineffective.

Left unsaid was the fact that one of the loopholes that enabled passage of the original ban limited research on the law’s effectiveness to the first year’s data rather than allow more conclusive long-term studies. A long–range, independent study issued as Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 found criminal use of assault weapons had fallen by one-third or more as a share of gun crimes in major jurisdictions.

The information is there if Congress is interested. After the ban expired, 37 percent of police departments reported noticeable increases in criminals’ use of assault weapons, according to a 2010 report by the Police Executive Research Forum.

In Virginia, the number of guns with high-capacity magazines seized by police dropped after they were included in the 1994 weapons ban, but then rebounded sharply after the ban expired, according to a 2011 study by The Washington Post. Maryland enacted its own more stringent ban on assault weapons in 1994, and a 55 percent drop in assault pistols from crime scenes was reported by the Baltimore police.
Whoops. The assault weapons ban actually did work. Can't let that get out.

Last edited by VeloCity; 02-01-13 at 16:43.
Reply With Quote
  #6826  
Old 02-01-13, 15:49
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Looks like Hagel's in trouble. Fault the party of 'no.'

http://freebeacon.com/this-hagel-hearing-is-a-disaster/
Uh huh.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/31...#ixzz2Jc7V0kiO

Quote:
Inhofe, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, has already stated that no matter what happens in the hearing he will not support Hagel.
Well hey, there's a grown up for you. But just goes to show that it really wouldn't matter who Obama nominated, Rs like Inhofe would be against it even before the hearings began, as he was with Hagel. Unfortunately the party of no is alive and well and still playing political games rather than governing.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/politi...gel/index.html

Quote:
"There is an element of strategic calculation going on here," said Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University. "They see him as being more vulnerable and they have a chance to stop this nomination or embarrass the president or at least make it more difficult for him."

Conservative groups take issue with Hagel's policy positions, but also, "They don't like the fact that he is a supporter of President Obama," said Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta. "Republicans have been playing opposition politics for four years and it's not easy to come out of that mold," he said. "In Hagel's case there's no love lost. They see him as someone as who turned on his party and they don't want there to be any confusion that this is a real Republican going into the Obama Cabinet."
Quote:
But let's be honest: Hagel's cardinal sin among neo-conservatives was his outspoken opposition to Bush-era foreign policy in Iraq and his decision to break Republican ranks and not support the 2007 Iraq surge.
Good people can disagree on policy and personnel; my wife and I disagree on the Hagel nomination. A confirmation hearing can usefully clear up any sincere questions. But a look at the facts, armed with a sense of perspective, suggests that it might be Hagel's most vociferous critics who are outside the historic mainstream, not Hagel himself.

Hagel's unvarnished independence is well-known in Washington, but his opposition to the quagmire of the Iraq war is not idiosyncratic. It is philosophically consistent with being a small government conservative and a Vietnam veteran, suspicious of calls to war by people who won't have to serve in the combat zone.
Had Obama nominated Susan Rice Rs would've been against that so he nominates a well-known conservative Republican and they don't like that, either. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Last edited by VeloCity; 02-01-13 at 16:15.
Reply With Quote
  #6827  
Old 02-01-13, 16:35
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Aaaand sometimes the truth accidentally pops out.

Quote:
On Wednesday, the Arkansas Senate approved an unconstitutional bill to ban abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. As The Nation’s Lee Fang noted Friday, this is part of a larger strategy by chief sponsor Sen. Jason Rapert (R) to remake America as a arch-conservative country.

Rapert explained his long-term goals in a racist 2011 rant at a Tea Party rally, as he bashed President Obama for hosting a Ramadan celebration:

RAPERT: I hear you loud and clear, Barack Obama. You don’t represent the country that I grew up with. And your values is [sic] not going to save us. We’re going to take this country back for the Lord. We’re going to try to take this country back for conservatism. And we’re not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in!
Damn minorities.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172584...on-restriction
Reply With Quote
  #6828  
Old 02-01-13, 16:46
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Aaaand sometimes the truth accidentally pops out.

Damn minorities.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172584...on-restriction
What? There are wingnuts on the right?
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6829  
Old 02-01-13, 16:48
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Or we could just do what Britain and Australia did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...35d_story.html

And as a libertarian you must be outraged by this, eh Scott?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...0a3_story.html

You can sue cigarette manufacturers, fast food outlets, oil companies, but you can't sue gun manufacturers because the NRA doesn't want you to have that right.

Or there's this, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/op...ion.html?_r=1&

Whoops. The assault weapons ban actually did work. Can't let that get out.
Quote:
You can sue cigarette manufacturers, fast food outlets, oil companies, but you can't sue gun manufacturers because the NRA doesn't want you to have that right.
Here's a thought; Maybe we should sue the dudes doing the shooting. You know, the criminals and mental patients.


AND FOR THE RECORD. Do what you want with guns. Blather on and on. I am now extremely bored with the argument so you boys have fun with it.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009

Last edited by Scott SoCal; 02-01-13 at 16:51.
Reply With Quote
  #6830  
Old 02-01-13, 17:00
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
What if Obama had spent like Reagan?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...t-like-reagan/

Yep. Spending is the problem, in that we're not spending enough at the moment.

But things are slowly getting better.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...nt-report.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...n-january.html
Quote:
What if Obama had spent like Reagan?
Oh, gee, I don't know. Let me guess? 20 Trillion in debt? I thought Klein was a little brighter than this. Guess not. Wonder what the economy would look like today if there was never a mention of Obamacare and BO had the tax policy of Reagan? Things to ponder...

BTW, you see this? IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family.

Yikes.

Quote:
The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
Doesn't sound bronze to me.... sound more like pure (comedy) gold.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-...e-20000-family

Thank God for Obamacare.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:56.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.