• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate seat in epic upset

Zyphlin said:
Yep, let me connect the dots. Someone was talking about this catapulting Brown to the Presidency, others started saying how Palin would be the better choice, others said no she wouldn't, others said well you are voting for Obama if you woudn't vote for her, others said that's idiotic. So its talking about Brown in the scope of the Presidency. Its page 14 with 500+ posts, minor thread drift is hardly uncalled for. If you want it to be simply about Brown wining hte seat and nothing else this would've been closed and locked 250+ posts ago most likely.

I think the talk of Brown for President is far, far to premature and I'd be more interested in seeing how he actually governs first and if its the same as he campaigned. I'd also would have issue with him experience wise. That said, he'd be leagues more likely at this point to get my vote than Palin.
Click to expand...
It's all academic, Brown needs to have a chance in the Senate, and Palin is at least as prepared as Obama to be president. I like Palin, but I don't thinks she's ready yet. But if I had to chose between Palin and Obama, there would be no doubt I'd vote for Palin.
 
disneydude said:
You know its bad for GWB's legacy when the man....
Click to expand...

But it is good for W's legacy when the man who attempts to follow in his footsteps copies his foreign policies(for the most part), and loses this Massachusetts election. People are starting to realize they were unaware how good they had it.

The fact that Obama is such a circus clown does wonders for W's legacy, this vote quite telling.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Standard "progressive" tactic - the "politics of personal destruction".
Click to expand...

Yepper!

Why? So she can sound like some machine made Vassar Graduate?
Click to expand...

Ya know if you listen to Hillary she says, "and a" constantly. Very annoying. She almost got to be President. She seems smart, but she has a predatory way of acting, that Palin doesn't have, so I'm definitely going with Palin.

Would you be saying this if she had Michelle Obama's "negro dialect"?
Click to expand...

Really it should be the content of what they are saying, and Palin seems a little guarded right now. If she can shake that, she might go all the way and become a Senator, is what I'm hearing.

What? The Messiah is PERFECT! How dare you say His teleprompter reading skills are declining.
Click to expand...

He's a trainwreck.
 
RightinNYC said:
If you're going to call someone else ignorant, you should probably understand the basics of the topic you discuss.

The flu shot doesn't cure the flu - it's a vaccine that is only partially effective and only if you get it before infection.

Furthermore, if you went to your GP with the flu, do you know what he would recommend 99 to 100% of the time? Bed rest, fluids, and maybe some acetaminophen to bring down a fever. Know what contains acetaminophen? Nyquil.

The fact that your cousin got a very bad case of the flu doesn't mean anything about whether it would have turned out differently had he gone to a doctor when he first got the symptoms.
Click to expand...

So I guess every exact detail is necessary for you to understand a point.

OK, my cousin didn't have insurance and got sick. He tried to ride it out, taking over the counter medicine. He got sicker and sicker until his wife took him to the emergency room. He was diagnosed with pneumonia and was admitted to the hospital where he spent X number of days (only a couple if I remember correctly) and was then sent home to continue to recover. His bill was approx. 10k.

He has been paying off his bill for 2 years. He was out of work nearly 2 months. Who paid for his lack of productivity? We all did.

Is there some evidence that using emergency rooms is cheaper than preventative care?
 
apdst said:
"Greedy", is typically directed at people who go out and make money; never at people who sit on their ass and look in the mailbox for their paycheck on the first of every month.
Click to expand...

I always thought "greedy" was typically directed at people who take more than they need. :roll:
 
NoJingoLingo said:
So I guess every exact detail is necessary for you to understand a point.

OK, my cousin didn't have insurance and got sick. He tried to ride it out, taking over the counter medicine. He got sicker and sicker until his wife took him to the emergency room. He was diagnosed with pneumonia and was admitted to the hospital where he spent X number of days (only a couple if I remember correctly) and was then sent home to continue to recover. His bill was approx. 10k.

He has been paying off his bill for 2 years. He was out of work nearly 2 months. Who paid for his lack of productivity? We all did.

Is there some evidence that using emergency rooms is cheaper than preventative care?
Click to expand...

Scott Brown ran in MA on being the 41st vote against Obamacare and won in the most liberal state in America. You can spin that any way you want but I don't believe that the people of MA believe it is the United States Taxpayer responsibility to pay for your insurance. Insurance companies are controlled by the states and if you want to force the taxpayers of your state to fund your healthcare, go for it. The people of TX shouldn't be paying healthcare for the people of NY.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
I always thought "greedy" was typically directed at people who take more than they need. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, you're half correct. Greed can be defined as a desire or want for more than one needs, OR, more than one deserves.

So yes, it could be stated that someone who continually works his ass off due to a desire to have more money than is actually needed so he can buy more expensive things and doesn't want that taken away is greedy.

However

If you're going to call that person greedy you also must call the person whose making only $24,000 a year and doesn't have health care, but eats out at resturants twice a week, smokes 2 packs a week, routinely goes to happy hour, and has cable TV greedy for wanting to take money from someone else to pay for his health care that he doesn't "deserve" based off what he does.

If health care is such a necessity, then people should be spending money on it instead of luxuries like going out to a resturant routinely, cable TV, cigerettes or alcohol, video games, or anything of that sort. If its a NECESSITY, then it should be coming before luxuries.

I have sympathy for people that honest to goodness skimp and have almost no luxuries and are actively trying their best to get and hold a job and still can't afford something like shelter, health care, or food. I have significantly less symapthy for people who want to eat their cake and have it too, and wants someone else to pay for that cake.
 
j-mac said:
Do you have savings Jingo? If so why? Isn't that greed?



j-mac
Click to expand...

Yes. I have clothing which I really don't need either because I could move to a place that had a more consistently mild climate. :roll: was your question intended to be that ridiculous?
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, you're half correct. Greed can be defined as a desire or want for more than one needs, OR, more than one deserves.

So yes, it could be stated that someone who continually works his ass off due to a desire to have more money than is actually needed so he can buy more expensive things and doesn't want that taken away is greedy.

However

If you're going to call that person greedy you also must call the person whose making only $24,000 a year and doesn't have health care, but eats out at resturants twice a week, smokes 2 packs a week, routinely goes to happy hour, and has cable TV greedy for wanting to take money from someone else to pay for his health care that he doesn't "deserve" based off what he does.

If health care is such a necessity, then people should be spending money on it instead of luxuries like going out to a resturant routinely, cable TV, cigerettes or alcohol, video games, or anything of that sort. If its a NECESSITY, then it should be coming before luxuries.

I have sympathy for people that honest to goodness skimp and have almost no luxuries and are actively trying their best to get and hold a job and still can't afford something like shelter, health care, or food. I have significantly less symapthy for people who want to eat their cake and have it too, and wants someone else to pay for that cake.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you said there. :clap:
 
Gibberish said:
What is Palin wins? Is my non-vote a Vote for Palin since my lack of vote helped Obama NOT win?
Click to expand...

The president as the incumbent will be the favorite......the challenger needs all the votes they can get.....If you don't vote it helps the favorite.......
 
See, here's the thing though.

Contrary to what is the common, feel good belief, greed isn't bad.

Being overly greedy can be bad. Greed to an exclusion is bad. However, Greed in part is what pushes our economy and tends to make things better for many people.

Do you think the people creating microchips wanted to create smaller microchips simply because it'd be really really cool? No, smaller microchips made your technology more advanced which got you more money which you could use to spend on cooler stuff. It also opened up a whole new world of technology for everyone.

Any person that works extra hours at work to get some extra money to go on a trip to the beach for a week is exhibiting "greed" in its purest definition because they don't NEED a trip, it is purely a luxury and nothing else. Anyone that saved up for that big wide screen LCD TV and that HD cable package they got is "greedy" by the pure definition of it. Anyone who bought that top end graphics card to play WOW on in stunning graphics even though you could run it on 4 year old technology is "greedy".

But they're also...well...kind of normal.

There is no a person on this forum that has never done a greedy thing, by its definition, in their entire life. It just isn't going to happen and anyone that says theyve never done anything greedy is lying in my mind.

Why do I say that?

Cause I almost garauntee you they're not posting that comment from some library but from their own home where they've spent extra money to get internet in their house which is a luxury, not a necessity.

What we have though is people feeling like its okay to call people greedy ONLY when someone is able to have MORE luxuries than they do.
 
Zyphlin said:
Cause I almost garauntee you they're not posting that comment from some library but from their own home where they've spent extra money to get internet in their house which is a luxury, not a necessity.

What we have though is people feeling like its okay to call people greedy ONLY when someone is able to have MORE luxuries than they do.
Click to expand...

Actually Im sitting in a bar having a beer trading stocks as I type
 
zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture1416-brown.jpg


The One we Have Been Waiting For... LOL.

Thanks Obi... we couldn't have done it without you.

.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Yes. I have clothing which I really don't need either because I could move to a place that had a more consistently mild climate. :roll: was your question intended to be that ridiculous?
Click to expand...


Well, it just seems to me that you are preaching that this so called 'greed' is what turns you off, I am just examining whether it really means something to you, or if you mean OTHER people.....


j-mac
 
Zyphlin said:
See, here's the thing though.

Contrary to what is the common, feel good belief, greed isn't bad.

Being overly greedy can be bad. Greed to an exclusion is bad. However, Greed in part is what pushes our economy and tends to make things better for many people.

Do you think the people creating microchips wanted to create smaller microchips simply because it'd be really really cool? No, smaller microchips made your technology more advanced which got you more money which you could use to spend on cooler stuff. It also opened up a whole new world of technology for everyone.

Any person that works extra hours at work to get some extra money to go on a trip to the beach for a week is exhibiting "greed" in its purest definition because they don't NEED a trip, it is purely a luxury and nothing else. Anyone that saved up for that big wide screen LCD TV and that HD cable package they got is "greedy" by the pure definition of it. Anyone who bought that top end graphics card to play WOW on in stunning graphics even though you could run it on 4 year old technology is "greedy".

But they're also...well...kind of normal.

There is no a person on this forum that has never done a greedy thing, by its definition, in their entire life. It just isn't going to happen and anyone that says theyve never done anything greedy is lying in my mind.

Why do I say that?

Cause I almost garauntee you they're not posting that comment from some library but from their own home where they've spent extra money to get internet in their house which is a luxury, not a necessity.

What we have though is people feeling like its okay to call people greedy ONLY when someone is able to have MORE luxuries than they do.
Click to expand...

When we talk about greed or being greedy, I think we all understand the context. Greed is an evolutionary holdover from our ability to plan for the future. But that form of greed is lost on the greed of excess, and as you correctly pointed out earlier, on laziness.

In my opinion however, I would rather give a guy 1 dollar than have him steal 10. Mostly because violence often follows theft.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
When we talk about greed or being greedy, I think we all understand the context. Greed is an evolutionary holdover from our ability to plan for the future. But that form of greed is lost on the greed of excess, and as you correctly pointed out earlier, on laziness.

In my opinion however, I would rather give a guy 1 dollar than have him steal 10. Mostly because violence often follows theft.
Click to expand...


We should all be charitable from within our own hearts. Having you tell me for example, what I should give, and to whom is not correct.


j-mac
 
NoJingoLingo said:
So I guess every exact detail is necessary for you to understand a point.

OK, my cousin didn't have insurance and got sick. He tried to ride it out, taking over the counter medicine. He got sicker and sicker until his wife took him to the emergency room. He was diagnosed with pneumonia and was admitted to the hospital where he spent X number of days (only a couple if I remember correctly) and was then sent home to continue to recover. His bill was approx. 10k.

He has been paying off his bill for 2 years. He was out of work nearly 2 months. Who paid for his lack of productivity? We all did.

Is there some evidence that using emergency rooms is cheaper than preventative care?
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is premised on the assumption that if he had had insurance, none of this would have happened because he would have gone to see a doctor when he first got the flu symptoms and that would have changed the whole course of events. In reality, if he had had insurance and gone to see the doctor, the doctor most likely would have told him to get some bed rest, drink lots of fluids, and take some acetaminophen, aka Nyquil. Which is what he did.
 
Plus, what else did he do? Did he stay in bed and get the needed rest? Or did he just take the NyQuil and keep plodding on as normal?

Flu doesn't generally lead to pneumonia unless you aggravate it.
 
RightinNYC said:
Your entire argument is premised on the assumption that if he had had insurance, none of this would have happened because he would have gone to see a doctor when he first got the flu symptoms and that would have changed the whole course of events. In reality, if he had had insurance and gone to see the doctor, the doctor most likely would have told him to get some bed rest, drink lots of fluids, and take some acetaminophen, aka Nyquil. Which is what he did.
Click to expand...

My step son recently got the flu and the Dr. proscribed some medicine. It is a fairly recently available and its promise is the sooner taken the sooner the flu is knocked out. Within roughly 36 or less the fever was gone aftet the med was taken. W/O insurance the med was something like 200 + bucks and even with the insurance it was still 67 bucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom