The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

[hermhater]

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary



WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. greets a familiar face. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Elise Amendola

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.






http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080108/w0108115A.html

Crap.

[AussieChiefsFan]

Not trying to offend any Republican supporters. Just something interesting to watch,

[chief31]

We are going to have to break this into multiple comments. And it's too late to get started tonight.

But it is refreshing to have a level-headed discussion about this stuff.

I'll get back to ya tomorrow...

[TopekaRoy]

We are going to have to break this into multiple comments. And it's too late to get started tonight.

But it is refreshing to have a level-headed discussion about this stuff.

I'll get back to ya tomorrow...

My response to your last post was over 2400 characters and there's a 2000 character limit, so I had to divide it into two posts! But I really am enjoying this debate. Unfortunately, it has branched out into a number of different topics---Health care reform, free speech, the authority of the Supreme Court, the economy, foreign policy, the Constitution ...

We may have to narrow our focus and try to stick to one topic at a time. (But I'm willing to attack all of them )

I look forward to reading your response(s)!

[Chiefster]

You know what you call a bus load of politicians and lawyers going off a cliff?






...A good start.

[AussieChiefsFan]

You know what you call a bus load of politicians and lawyers going off a cliff?






...A good start.

nice one

[chief31]

My response to your last post was over 2400 characters and there's a 2000 character limit, so I had to divide it into two posts! But I really am enjoying this debate. Unfortunately, it has branched out into a number of different topics---Health care reform, free speech, the authority of the Supreme Court, the economy, foreign policy, the Constitution ...

We may have to narrow our focus and try to stick to one topic at a time. (But I'm willing to attack all of them )

I look forward to reading your response(s)!

It always does, when two parties are willing to debate reasonably.

So, here we go.....

[chief31]

Semantics I guess. You see criticism and insult (begrudgingly, it seems). I see him threatening that if SCOTUS strikes down the individual mandate then they will be perceived as inhumane and uncaring for the poor, elderly and people with preexisting conditions. I see that as a threat: "Don't do this, or that will happen." At the very least, his comments were inappropriate for a sitting President and undermined the authority of the Supreme Court.

That's the thing... Is you take what is, in your opinion, inappropriate, and have twisted it into a threat. But a threat has, at the very least, an implied consequence. And there is none. You reached for one, as being that "they will be perceived as ..."

I think, if you were to be reasonable on this, you would come to the obvious conclusion that you exaggerated. Just like President Obama did with his "unprecedented" comment.

That's why SC justices are appointed for life. I want my elected officials to write and pass legislation so I can hold them accountable when they go astray. But I don't want the people who determine if those laws are constitutional or not to be worried about political fallout for making a correct, but unpopular decision. Isn't that a great system?

That just gives them a free run to do whatever they want. But this one really isn't even worth the argument, as it has already fallen under the category of pure opinion. Rather you think not having consequences is a good thing for people in power, or not.

I think not.

I like having three branches. But I just don't like the lifetime appointment feature. But then, I am in favor of more term limits.

Article X in the Bill of Rights which says that any power not specifically delegated to the Federal Govt is reserved for the States. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government power to force everyone to bu y a specific product (healthcare insurance) from a private company, or be fined and held criminally liable for not doing so.

Well, the mandate is the only thing that seems to be a problem. But I bet you wouldn't like it any more if they had worked it so that it would have been worded as a tax either.

It forces the wealthy who can afford to pay for their healthcare as they go along to buy a product that they have no use for and it forces the healthy who can pay for checkups and preventative healthcare 'out-of-pocket' to purchase a product that they have no need for.

We all purchase schooling, rather we use it, or not. We all purchase military rather we use it, or not.

Had they worded it to be a tax, then all the arguments go by the wayside. Perhaps they should have done the right thing, and just gotten all of the Republican ideals out of it, by Socializing medicine. There would still be plenty of private sector medical facitlities, and the whole job would have been done.

The money you earn (minus the part that the government skims off the top in the form of taxes at all levels) belongs to you and in a free country, you have the legal right to buy whatever you want with it, even if you spend it foolishly or irresponsibly.

They can't tell you that you have to buy a car because it helps the economy and they can't tell you what food you have to buy because "everybody has to eat whether they want to or not, and are therefore part of that commerce," which is precisely the argument they are making before the SC with regards to healthcare. "Everyone will need it at some point in their lives." Not relevant and not even true. What if you get hit by a bus or shot and die instantly at age 25? Or never have any health problems but die in your sleep at age 60 from a massive heart attack? Then the govt. has forced you to pay for a product you never needed or used.

But they can force you to eat, and even make you pay for the food.

If you have an accident, and do not have insurance, you go to the hospital, they are forced to feed you, to keep you alive, and you will be billed for it. It is a matter of law.

There are plenty of loop-holes that could be argued here. But I am not a lawyer.

[chief31]

Full rebound? Where are you getting your numbers from? Unemployment is still 8.2% which is higher then it was when Obama took office,

How far has that number gone up? How about the first indicator, the stock market?

And that little dig at what the numbers were when Obama took over is unfair, and you have to know it.

He inherited an economy that was in the process of a total collapse. UE had yet to feel the full impact, and everybody knew it.... then.

You just don't withstand the kind of crash we had in '07 and expect to not see an even bigger impact on the job market.

And yes, President Obama was full of it when he tried to tell us that it would not go over 8%. It was coming like a hurricane, and stimulus was to be spread out over seven, to twelve, years.

and it has only gone down because they quit counting people whose unemployment coverage has run out. The real unemployment rate is 14.6%, which is what would be reported if they still used the same method they used in the late 70s/early 80s. (source)

Again, you aren't being reasonable here.

A.) Democrats have fought feverishly against Republicans to extend the time limits of UE for those in need, thus inflating the numbers. All at the detriment of his own campaign.

This is to his credit. He has put the needs of the American people over his re-election campaign.

B.) As for the "real UE numbers".... Pick a stat and stick with it. You can't just pick the stat with the bigger numbers whenever it looks worse for the guy you are against.

If you want to go with the jobless rate, then start there too. Saying that it was under 8% at one point, and then telling us that it is now over 14% is disingenuous.

C.) Bottom line, the job market is clearly improving. (Not that it has a chance at a real improvement, so long as we continue with "free trade" agreements.

In March only 120,000 jobs were created which is fewer than the previous 2 months and fewer than the number of people who are entering the job market in the same time period. The number of long term unemployed (more than 6 months) has risen from 1 million in 2007 to 7 million today (43% of all unemployed). That's far higher than it was in in 1981 when the overall (real) unemployment rate was 10.8%.

Average weekly earnings fell per capita in March as well, with the average workweek falling from 34.6 hrs to 34.5.

It's one month. No growth is ever 100% positive. Markets rise, and fall. And this one has been on an upswing for quite a while.

In the last 16 months the UE rate has dropped by nearly two full percentage points.

Gas prices are soaring and could soon hit $5 per gallon. That means higher food prices and less disposable income, so people with the same amount of money they had when Obama took office are now poorer and this will stall even the very weak growth that is occurring now.

So, are you implying that government controls the oil markets?

Gas prices will forever go up. They won't go back down, until The USA goes crazy with the drilling. And that is not going to happen for a long time, regardless of which party is in power.

The federal government is playing the oil market. When oil becomes scarce enough, The USA expects to take over as the world's leader in oil distribution. Republicans didn't cut into that, and Democrats won't either, not even for an election.

Mortgage foreclosures are still high and the average home value continues to drop. Manufacturing productivity also dropped in March.

"Full-on recovery?" Hardly.

If you truly believe that the economy is not on a major upswing, then you don't know anything about national economics.

The first sign, up, or down, is the stock market. It crashed first, and it is recovering to almost full-strength.

The job market is generally second, because confidence in the stock market is what spurs hiring. And we have been gaining big for the last sixteen months. And with the stock market as strong as it is, there is every reason to believe that that trend will continue.

The housing market collapsed completely. It is not just going to rebound. It has to be pretty much rebuilt.

But you aren't clueless. You are just playing politics on this, and seemingly rooting against the recovery.

Stop that!

[underdawg87]

For the record, I almost laughed out loud when I read that Obama has put the needs of the American people over his own re-election. I don't think he has put anything in front of his re-election throughout his entire presidency. If he gets re-elected...

[chief31]

Okay ... The banks were bailed out before Obama took office, so he hardly gets any credit for that. The second stimulus package (the one that Obama said we would have to pass to keep unemployment under 8%, LOL) has done almost nothing. Oh, we did loan Solyndra $535 million to make solar panels! That's money down the drain.

Ah yes... Solyndra... The lone poster-child for Republicans. But, for every Solyndra, there are a hundred success stories.

Breaking our dependency on foreign fossil fuels is hardly money down the drain. We need to keep that push going, as evidenced by the gas prices.

We didn't need a "government take over" to bail out GM. Ford didn't take any bailout money and they are doing better than ever. Chrysler accepted bailout money (without a government take over) and they have paid it all back. GM continues to shove the Volt down our throats (which I really like the car, by the way) even though hardly anyone wants one--despite a $7500 tax credit, they are still too expensive. And production of the Volt has been temporarily halted because, apparently, they have a tendency to spontaneously catch on fire!

So you were in favor of allowing Detroit to crash? What do you think the UE numbers would have been then?

Agreed. I just think we did the wrong things. you can't stimulate the economy by taking money from the consumer and using it for the government to spend. it does nothing to increase demand or put more money into the economy to 'stimulate' it. All it does is change where that money is coming from.

...And help ensure some minimal amount of balance. You can't have people going hungry. They become desperate, and desperation spawns crime.

Let's start with free speech. The Supreme Court helped us out with that one, against Obama's wishes, but the current administration continues to push the "fairness doctrine" which is aimed directly at limiting the speech of conservative talk radio.

Speech comes from your body, not the wallet. Spending is not speech. And corporations are still not US citizens. They can't be.

And a group of people, does not, a person, make.

How about freedom of religion? His administration tried to force religious institution to provide birth control and abortion coverage, violating their religious rights.

No. That is flat out wrong. They expect the insurance company to provide that form of healthcare.

Nobody has the right to deny healthcare to employees. And contraception is preventative healthcare.

Tell that to the people who live along the Arizona and Texas/ Mexico border who constantly have to deal with Mexican drug gangs coming onto their property because the Obama Administration refuses to secure our Border.

Don't get me started on illegal immigration. That has been ongoing for decades, and it would be insane to pay the amount that a 2000 mile, indefensible wall would cost.

We have been deporting for so long that we have figured out that deportation is as expensive as it is ineffective.

But President Obama has stepped up border patrol (waste of money). Only to have everybody spout off this ridiculous rhetoric about how is the reason for all illegal immigration. When, in fact, the prime culprit is our unwillingness to put the blame where it belongs, on ourselves.

We are the people who have created and funded the cartles of those nations, to where they are able to strong-arm their own governments, and our own citizens who encourage those people to come here, by offering jobs and housing.

But I assume you are in favor of forcing all US citizens to carry ID cards to avoid deportation?

Then their is the "fast and furious" gun running fiasco, and the refusal of Obama to allow Arizona to check to see if people they stop for other crimes are illegal aliens and to enforce their deportation.

Ah yes. Mandatory ID cards, there it is.

This is one of the problems with The US Constitution. You lose interest when it does not punish people whom you don't like.

Aside from the mandatory ID problem, Arizona's law is unconstitutional because it assumes guilt of suspects. Meaning that, so long as you are a suspect, we allow the state to assume your guilt by demanding an ID.

As far as the lack of terrorist attacks goes, you can thank Homeland Security for that, which was started under the Bush administration.

I would be glad to, so long as you were willing to thank the previous administrations for the economic ruin that we fell into. But you seem content to let that rest on the clean-up crew.

I give him credit for giving the okay to take out Bin Laden after our heroic troops located him. Any President would have done the same though. And I thought he handled the Somali Pirates incident well, but that's about it.

All the while he continues to bow to foreign leaders (literally) and apologize for America abroad.

As well he should. There is nothing wrong with being respectful to other world leaders. And we have done a whole lot of wrong that should be apologized for.

I have no doubt that I could get you on a rant about how The USA interferes too much in other nations' business, so long as I were to frame it as an anti-Obama opportunity.

You and I see things differently my friend. Things are going well in Iraq, but badly in Afghanistan. Iran is defiantly developing a nuclear arsenal, there is increasing unrest in Syria, and North Korea continues to be a threat. Worldwide, terrorism is worse than it ever has been.

Iran and their arsenal is not our business. Not that I want them to be armed. But we are not the police of the world.

Again, where is the Constitution now?

That is absolutely not what our government is supposed to be doing.

And I notice that you left out the civil unrest in Egypt and Libya. We did as should, and maybe too much. We did not invade some foreign nation to meet our ends. We used a lot of diplomacy, and a little bit of help for the humanitarian effort, without putting a single US soldier on the pricetag.

Meanwhile, all I heard from the right, leading up to our role in Libya, was how we had to invade. And there was a lot of outrage because we waited for all US citizens to get out of the country before helping.


Why, oh why, did you have to go and bring up every single political argument, all at once?!?!?!?!?