• 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!

Health Care Reform Provision Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

Erod said:
Years from now, the Iraq War will go down as a necessary and strategically critical move by the U.S.

It's a lot easier to keep that rogueish, disturbed, and dangerous third world region at bay from across the fence than halfway around the world.
Click to expand...

Only if the world goes stupid. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Only if the world goes stupid. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Well, your boy Clinton was all for it.

This chapter is far from written. There's a reason that even Obama, of all people, won't withdraw the troops. Something tells me they know more than we do.
 
Erod said:
Well, your boy Clinton was all for it.

This chapter is far from written. There's a reason that even Obama, of all people, won't withdraw the troops. Something tells me they know more than we do.
Click to expand...

First, he's not my boy. I voted for Dole.

Second, Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Bush did.

And if anything good comes from iraq, it will be because of iraqis and not the US. Our damage is real today. The future depends on the iraqis, and it would be dishonest to take credit for their work.
 
Boo Radley said:
Then you're making a really stupid point. Politicians represent us, which is why we vote on them. They are not always experts on law, and they soemtimes have their writings sent back to them by experts, the courts. So, two very different roles with two very different responsibilities, and who answer to very different standards. You're inarticluate point seems misguided, if not plain inacurate.


I didn't use the word friends. I said I talk to people. From all around the state. A good number of people, 20 to thirty at a time.
Click to expand...

Typical Boo.... One rule for you and the opposite for everyone else. :naughty
 
Boo Radley said:
First, he's not my boy. I voted for Dole.

Second, Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Bush did.

And if anything good comes from iraq, it will be because of iraqis and not the US. Our damage is real today. The future depends on the iraqis, and it would be dishonest to take credit for their work.
Click to expand...

Clinton might not have invaded Iraq initially, but he sure as hell stayed there and escalated it. He also signed a bill calling for Saddam's assasination.
 
Erod said:
Years from now, the Iraq War will go down as a necessary and strategically critical move by the U.S.

It's a lot easier to keep that rogueish, disturbed, and dangerous third world region at bay from across the fence than halfway around the world.
Click to expand...

They had no WMD's.

And now Iran and most definitely North Korea has them.

The only stragetic value Iraq has, is oil reserves and an easy access point to Iran. Doesn't make it a just and right war, no boys had to die there.

So now that a actual bad country has WMD's, glad to see your priorities were straight :coffeepap:
 
Jetboogieman said:
They had no WMD's.

And now Iran and most definitely North Korea has them.

The only stragetic value Iraq has, is oil reserves and an easy access point to Iran. Doesn't make it a just and right war, no boys had to die there.

So now that a actual bad country has WMD's, glad to see your priorities were straight :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

you're not really one of those 'we went in for the oil' people... are you?
 
Gill said:
Yeah ?? You keep telling yourself that if you think it justifies your hypocritical position.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. You don't understand and you make silly arguments and that's my fault. I got you. You really didn't address a thing I said, so you might want to examine yourself just a little. :coffeepap
 
Gill said:
Clinton might not have invaded Iraq initially, but he sure as hell stayed there and escalated it. He also signed a bill calling for Saddam's assasination.
Click to expand...

All of which is not invading. Not equal to it either. Wanting an outcomes is not the same as being reckless to get it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yeah, I know. You don't understand and you make silly arguments and that's my fault. I got you. You really didn't address a thing I said, so you might want to examine yourself just a little. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

You mean silly arguments like claiming that most Iowans don't understand the law or the ruling, with your only proof being casual conversations with a few strangers on the street ???

That kind of silly argument ??
 
Boo Radley said:
All of which is not invading. Not equal to it either. Wanting an outcomes is not the same as being reckless to get it.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so you approve of American presidents calling for the assasination of foriegn leaders.
 
Gill said:
Ahhh, so you approve of American presidents calling for the assasination of foriegn leaders.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I said that, as I don't. But let's not pretend it is the same reckless act as invading a country. Both illegal in their own right, but one more costly than the other.
 
Gill said:
You mean silly arguments like claiming that most Iowans don't understand the law or the ruling, with your only proof being casual conversations with a few strangers on the street ???

That kind of silly argument ??
Click to expand...

Is there any reason to belive that most read the ruling? Any at all. Too many listen to people like Beck and Limbaugh, and talking heads that merely promote misunderstandings. And much of the financing for the effort to remove the judges came from out of state. The ads were very misleading and inaccurate. So, it is unlikley that many, if any significant number, actually read the ruling.

So, no, my statement is no where near as silly as your legislators are the same as judges arguement.
 
Boo Radley said:
Is there any reason to belive that most read the ruling? Any at all. Too many listen to people like Beck and Limbaugh, and talking heads that merely promote misunderstandings. And much of the financing for the effort to remove the judges came from out of state. The ads were very misleading and inaccurate. So, it is unlikley that many, if any significant number, actually read the ruling.

So, no, my statement is no where near as silly as your legislators are the same as judges arguement.
Click to expand...

No where did I make the claim that legislators are the same as judges. You made that up out of whole cloth based on nothing I wrote. You made the claim that we would not conduct a vote to determine the best medical treatment because we should leave it up to "experts". I was merely showing that politicians with no experience in law are voted in and out by the people, yet they are the ones that write the laws that govern our daily lives.

Is there any reason to believe that most did NOT read the ruling, other than your "man on the street" interviews? I don't recall Limbaugh or Beck commenting on Iowa's knowledge of the ruling. But you seem to listen to them more than I, so maybe you are right. :mrgreen:
 
Gill said:
No where did I make the claim that legislators are the same as judges. You made that up out of whole cloth based on nothing I wrote. You made the claim that we would not conduct a vote to determine the best medical treatment because we should leave it up to "experts". I was merely showing that politicians with no experience in law are voted in and out by the people, yet they are the ones that write the laws that govern our daily lives.

Is there any reason to believe that most did NOT read the ruling, other than your "man on the street" interviews? I don't recall Limbaugh or Beck commenting on Iowa's knowledge of the ruling. But you seem to listen to them more than I, so maybe you are right. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Which is different than experts, like doctors, mechanics and judges. They are not the same.

And yes, there is reason to believe they didn't. One in their arguements of judicial activism. That suggests they didn't read the ruling. Two, as I said, I've talkied to many. And third, most people don't have the time or the inclination to research such things. So there is reason to believe it likley that most did not read the ruling.
 
Gill said:
Other professions like our lawmakers ??? Would you let people that know nothing about law write the laws that govern us ???

Oh wait, you already do.

It's obvious you know NOTHING about Iowans if you think they are all ignorant. But your attitude is typical of many libs. Everybody is ignorant except the enlightened ones (liberals).
Click to expand...

As evidenced by your own words, your attitude isn't all that great either, too arrogant, too self serving, too cynical, too political...

ricksfolly
 
Boo Radley said:
Which is different than experts, like doctors, mechanics and judges. They are not the same.

And yes, there is reason to believe they didn't. One in their arguements of judicial activism. That suggests they didn't read the ruling. Two, as I said, I've talkied to many. And third, most people don't have the time or the inclination to research such things. So there is reason to believe it likley that most did not read the ruling.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, I keep forgetting that you talked to each and every person in Iowa. :roll:

Their arguement

They didn't read the ruling

Most don't have time or the inclination

Where is the proof you demand from everyone but yourself ????
 
ricksfolly said:
As evidenced by your own words, your attitude isn't all that great either, too arrogant, too self serving, too cynical, too political...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Too political ???

Hmm, thought this board was called "Debate Politics" ????

Maybe you're on the wrong forum.
 
Gill said:
Ahh yes, I keep forgetting that you talked to each and every person in Iowa. :roll:

Their arguement

They didn't read the ruling

Most don't have time or the inclination

Where is the proof you demand from everyone but yourself ????
Click to expand...

Didn't say that, so your sarachism is misplaced.

And what I say really isn't that controversial:

Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Public Knowledge: Senate Legislative Process a Mystery to Many - Pew Research Center
 
Gill said:
Hmmm, looked at both links and can't find Iowa mentioned in either. Guess you wasted your time.
Click to expand...

You're mising the point. Both show that most are not involved enough to actually look these things up and read them. Most are too busy living life to do these things. Again, it is not a controvestial thought.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're mising the point. Both show that most are not involved enough to actually look these things up and read them. Most are too busy living life to do these things. Again, it is not a controvestial thought.
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about "most" people were we? We were talking about Iowans. I'll await your proof with bated breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom