Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Political talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/)
-   -   I MUST post this.... (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/i-must-post-23347/)

Guest 07-28-2009 10:49 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217087)
Like I would watch Glen Beck
Sure, why not... laughter is good medicine.

Guest 07-28-2009 11:09 AM
Yeah, But...
 
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217051)
...doesn't it make sense to open it up for full explanation, understanding and debate?...
If that's all that was done in some extra time taken before voting, I'd agree. But if Congress is given more time, not only does the "debate" become stone-throwing, but too many self-serving legislators and their moneyed lobbyist backers start adding amendments or changing the language, often to something 180 degrees from what was intended.

Juat as Bucco doesn't trust the President, I have at least an equal amount of distrust for the U.S. Congress. Given the choice, I'll side with the "benevolent dictator".

Guest 07-28-2009 12:18 PM
I say that congress taking their August recess is the best thing that can happen. They can do no harm when they are home.

Guest 07-28-2009 12:21 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217090)
You wanted a point by point answer:


Originally Posted by Keedy
Selective points, huh?

There is legitimate reasons to question and be very scared of Obama.


He has never showed his original birth certificate.

The State of Hawaii has provided his birth certificate.

He didn't spend his formative years growing up in America so culturally he is not American

This is just BS...he spent most of his fomative years in Hawaii the 50th state

He has spent half his life aligned with radical extremists who hate America and has refused to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

Just more crap.. He served on a board with a former Weatherman. I wouldn't call that aligned.
He wants to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector...so yes he is a socialist.

You have no proof he is a socialist...

He will not listen or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

He met with the Republicans during the stimulus debate accepted some changes and then NOT one Republican voted for the stimulus package.

He has never run a company or met a payroll.

Would you like to talk about W's failed business history.

He blames America for everything and delivers this message abroad.

Just another load of crap.....

He is the most arrogant and self-important hypocrite I have ever seen as a POTUS and I will beat that drum every day for the next 3 1/2 years until he is replaced by a responsible American.

I think I can name at least one other totally arrogant administration in recent history.

And we all know what you mean when you say he isn't an American


********* This list is from my own research and my own opinion. It is 100% typed and no cut and paste
:a20: Thanks for making me more healthy. LOL

Guest 07-28-2009 01:56 PM
Must???
 
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 216870)
....I feel a sense of some relief or something when I read this being published FINALLY in some type of national record....
"The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar. "
There's only a couple of things we MUST do, Bucco. Publishing an article so poorly researched as this one isn't one of them.

If you get a sense of relief from this article, and if the author's research is as poorly done as is reflected in the sentence that you cut and pasted from the article (above), then the exchange of barbs above regarding laughter and it's benefits certainly apply. The author apparently doesn't know and didn't bother to try to find out the academic record needed to get into the Harvard Law School. Or the academic achievement needed to be selected to write for the Harvard Law Review. Or to be chosen to edit the Law Review. Frankly, I'm surprised that Ben Stein (the author of thr article) wrote such a ridiculous statement. He should know better. Like President Obama, he graduated from Columbia University, going on the Yale Law School, where he was valedictorian of his class. Why would Stein make such a statement, when his own academic experience shows that he absolutely knows better?

"...complete lack of scholarship"? Now that's laughable. If this is the best article you could find to give you relief, Bucco, I'd suggest you keep looking.

Guest 07-28-2009 02:02 PM
Actually, Cologal, I was talking about recounts done after the fact. One in particular was done by the Miama Hearald and USA Today, both liberal papers, and it showed that Bush won, Other news organizations, also, conducted recounts. Their results were the same.
As for exit polls. The polls always seem to show Democrats winning. Makes you wonder who they ask. Surely, the main stream media wouldn't be trying to sway people who haven't voted yet!!

Guest 07-28-2009 02:55 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217120)
Actually, Cologal, I was talking about recounts done after the fact. One in particular was done by the Miama Hearald and USA Today, both liberal papers, and it showed that Bush won, Other news organizations, also, conducted recounts. Their results were the same.
As for exit polls. The polls always seem to show Democrats winning. Makes you wonder who they ask. Surely, the main stream media wouldn't be trying to sway people who haven't voted yet!!

I don't have the same opinion of the main stream media that you do. And I know when both Nixon and Regan ran the exit polls clearly didn't indicate that the Dem's were winning.

But I know what you mean as I have lived in Colorado for 40 years...many times it wasn't even worth going to the polls after work.

Take care.

Guest 07-28-2009 03:09 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217126)
I don't have the same opinion of the main stream media that you do. And I know when both Nixon and Regan ran the exit polls clearly didn't indicate that the Dem's were winning.

But I know what you mean as I have lived in Colorado for 40 years...many times it wasn't even worth going to the polls after work.

Take care.
Nixon and Reagan ran the exit polls? Really. Could you please expand on that?

Guest 07-28-2009 04:46 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217103)
If that's all that was done in some extra time taken before voting, I'd agree. But if Congress is given more time, not only does the "debate" become stone-throwing, but too many self-serving legislators and their moneyed lobbyist backers start adding amendments or changing the language, often to something 180 degrees from what was intended.

Juat as Bucco doesn't trust the President, I have at least an equal amount of distrust for the U.S. Congress. Given the choice, I'll side with the "benevolent dictator".
I too have little trust in many congressfolk, but they are part of the process, and all there is for check-and-balance, and unless they vote for something, it doesn't happen. Better they know what they are voting to spend our money on, than throw up their hands and say, "what the heck, it's only money!"

Will there be grandstanding? You bet there will. But there already has been grandstanding from the White House, so a little more won't hurt.

I thought one of the goals of this administration was "full disclosure" because of Democratic accusations during the last administration of back-room actions. So, now this administration (and Congress) can do what they said they would, and not do what they complained about the last few years.

Guest 07-28-2009 07:46 PM
Transparency
 
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217151)
...I thought one of the goals of this administration was "full disclosure" because of Democratic accusations during the last administration of back-room actions...
We keep referring to HR 3200 which, if I understand correctly, is for the most part the healthcare reform plan put forward by the White House, all 1,017 pages of it. I guess there are a couple of other less inclusive bills batting around the House, but this is supposed to be the one that embraces the administration's plan for reform.

The Senate has apparently not responded with a bill from that body. I guess that might mean that they don't want to put forth the effort to actually draft a bill, choosing rather to simply negotiate whatever bill comes out of the House in joint committee.

But as far as "full disclosure" and "transparency" is concerned, I don't know what more the administration could do beyond this. Maybe read it for us? Nah, we can do that. Here it is...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3200ih.txt.pdf

Guest 07-28-2009 08:58 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217131)
Nixon and Reagan ran the exit polls? Really. Could you please expand on that?

Let me help you with this....Sally Jo said the Democrats always are winning in the exit polls....

I replied that when Nixon ran, 1972, he wasn't losing in the exit polls...same thing when Reagan ran.

Hope that helps.

Guest 07-28-2009 09:29 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217191)
We keep referring to HR 3200 which, if I understand correctly, is for the most part the healthcare reform plan put forward by the White House, all 1,017 pages of it. I guess there are a couple of other less inclusive bills batting around the House, but this is supposed to be the one that embraces the administration's plan for reform.

The Senate has apparently not responded with a bill from that body. I guess that might mean that they don't want to put forth the effort to actually draft a bill, choosing rather to simply negotiate whatever bill comes out of the House in joint committee.

But as far as "full disclosure" and "transparency" is concerned, I don't know what more the administration could do beyond this. Maybe read it for us? Nah, we can do that. Here it is...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3200ih.txt.pdf
As the Administration has ghost-written the legislation sponsored by Rep. Dingell (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.03200:), and the fact that the "thomas" URL has all the bill's content, that is all that is necessary to make it available. Now, I'm not sure how sharp everyone on this board is, but I know that the 800+ pages, many of which link into other statutes which also have to be researched, took me quite a bit of time to go through in a cursory manner. There's a lot of technical content meshed with a lot of vague "will do later" items that I still don't understand.

My point is, this bill is a lulu, and is as intense to go through as any document I have seen in quite a while. As my knowledge of medical systems is minimal, there's a lot of questions I have, and that's with a cursory review.

This is more than a "trust me" exercise. Shouldn't it get the full attention of Congress before committing $1Trillion and initiating 4 years of utter confusion?

Guest 07-29-2009 06:44 AM
Yep
 
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217210)
...I know that the 800+ pages, many of which link into other statutes which also have to be researched, took me quite a bit of time to go through in a cursory manner. There's a lot of technical content....this bill is a lulu, and is as intense to go through as any document I have seen in quite a while....
I had the same reaction you did, Steve. While not a lawyer, I read many, many loan and legal documents as a banker. In a whole lot of cases, I needed the assistance of our lawyers to explain the meaning of terms, the inter-relationship between sections or how existing law impacts on the content of the document I was reviewing. In many instances, about the best I could do alone is prepare a list of questions that I needed help with.

In reading thru HR 3200, in a cursory manner as you did, I find this bill in the same category, except that I don't have a lawyer to lean on. That being the case, I found it interesting that some posters here in the Political Forum listed the meaning of various sections and various pages with such absolute certainty. I went back and read several of the pages they cited and came away with either a question or with an altogether different interpretation.

A whole bunch of people were also aghast that Representative John Dingell said that he saw little benefit for him to read the entire bill. I know that his role was just to introduce the bill that someone else actually wrote and that he was probably being honest. But I found his statement ill-timed and unwise in that he still was listed as the principal sponsor of the bill. One really needs a lawyer to spend the time explaining the bill, it's terms, definitions and interrelationships. Is Dingell a lawyer? Even if he isn't, he's been making laws for a long, long time.

Guest 07-29-2009 06:59 AM
And VK, the fact that we read the same page and come away with different views or different questions should tell us all that this bill needs a lot more review and reading before it is passed into law. I would like you to read the page that says the government has electronic access to your bank account and see what your interpretation of that is. Being a banker could you better explain it. Maybe I just don't understand electronic funds transfer from my account to the government.

Guest 07-29-2009 07:42 AM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217231)
I had the same reaction you did, Steve. While not a lawyer, I read many, many loan and legal documents as a banker. In a whole lot of cases, I needed the assistance of our lawyers to explain the meaning of terms, the inter-relationship between sections or how existing law impacts on the content of the document I was reviewing. In many instances, about the best I could do alone is prepare a list of questions that I needed help with.

In reading thru HR 3200, in a cursory manner as you did, I find this bill in the same category, except that I don't have a lawyer to lean on. That being the case, I found it interesting that some posters here in the Political Forum listed the meaning of various sections and various pages with such absolute certainty. I went back and read several of the pages they cited and came away with either a question or with an altogether different interpretation.

A whole bunch of people were also aghast that Representative John Dingell said that he saw little benefit for him to read the entire bill. I know that his role was just to introduce the bill that someone else actually wrote and that he was probably being honest. But I found his statement ill-timed and unwise in that he still was listed as the principal sponsor of the bill. One really needs a lawyer to spend the time explaining the bill, it's terms, definitions and interrelationships. Is Dingell a lawyer? Even if he isn't, he's been making laws for a long, long time.
A little over a third of the congressfolk have law degrees. Most who have passed the bar are on "inactive" status at their bars.

If there's that much confusion in understanding the statute, writing the supporting (interpretive) regulations afterwards will be abominable. Once regulations have been put in place, the courts tend to leave them be as agency-expertise documents and give them a lot of deference if challenged. Another good reason to make sure everyone agrees with what the statute's language really means.

Guest 08-02-2009 11:56 AM
What Page(s)
 
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 217233)
And VK,...I would like you to read the page that says the government has electronic access to your bank account and see what your interpretation of that is. Being a banker could you better explain it. Maybe I just don't understand electronic funds transfer from my account to the government.
Where is the language describing ETF by the government? I'll re-read it.

I'm not too really excited about the government having ETF authority to charge your checking account. For one thing, they have all the authority they need to seize, freeze or take your accounts as it is, without ETF. I would expect that when I read the proposed bill that the ETF's authorized will almost certainly be by specific government agencies and for very specific and narrow purposes. I'd be surprised if it were otherwise. Being able to obtain payments via ETF is only one step removed from them being able to deduct what they say you owe them from "your money" in the form of Social Security payments, tax refunds, charges to your SSA payments because you made too m much money, etc., etc.

But I will read the language and try to figure out what they're asking for that authority when they never had it before.

Guest 08-03-2009 08:19 AM
Bucco and rtc you are not able to agree because you have different mind sets.

Rtc the left winger comes from the hate bush and hate republicans mind set.

Bucco comes from the mind set that obama is a socialist and capitalists have no possibility of agreeing with the socialist thinkers.

Bucco you are wasting your time trying to convince a hate mind set liberal.

Guest 08-03-2009 08:29 AM
You two are in a hopeless debate.

One of you has a mind set that bush was a liar which is a lie.

The other is a capitalist who will never ever become or ever respect a socialist like obama.

You two cannot find a happy ground when one is filled with hate for bush and republicans while the other with major scorn for socialism.

Guest 08-03-2009 08:35 AM
That's why being a moderate and/or independent is the way to go! Take the best from each side.

Guest 08-03-2009 08:43 AM
Reminds me of the motto, "Lead, follow or get the heck out of the way." A moderate reminds me of a gambler who wants to place his bets in the last quarter of the football game when he thinks he will have a sure thing.

Guest 08-03-2009 11:30 AM
Yessiree!
 
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 218114)
That's why being a moderate and/or independent is the way to go! Take the best from each side.
Oh yeah!!

Fiscal conservative, left-leaning on social issues, a defender of the Constitution (even though I don't agree with a few legal interpretations), and committed to listening to different points of view and changing my mind if I hear a better idea.....what could be better?

Guest 08-03-2009 02:25 PM
Quote:
Posted by Guest (Post 218150)
Oh yeah!!

Fiscal conservative, left-leaning on social issues, a defender of the Constitution (even though I don't agree with a few legal interpretations), and committed to listening to different points of view and changing my mind if I hear a better idea.....what could be better?
The only real difference between us is that I'm centrist on social issues. You and SteveZ are the most articulate people in Political and I always enjoy your posts, whether I agree with them or not.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.