Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 5, 2012, 01:10 PM   #26
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by robanga View Post
People debating over the democrats and republicans in this election and over Obama and Romney is like a heated debate on which color dinner plates to set the table with. There is no difference.

Both have had equal hands in the debacles of the past decade plus and both are driven by special interest money. Its simply another form of people's tribalism. My tribe is better than yours, my college football team rules..etc etc. Get on the winning team so you personally will benefit.

Choosing between the lesser evil? Good luck with that.
You haven't done very much research in to these candidates platforms and ideals if you think there's no difference. Saying that makes you lose all credibility.
zioxide is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 01:11 PM   #27
LIVEFRMNYC
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
The real question is whether the Tea Party and extreme right will continue to have control over the GOP.

REAL Republicans might take back their party after two failed presidential elections.
LIVEFRMNYC is online now   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 01:43 PM   #28
LethalWolfe
macrumors Demi-God
 
LethalWolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles
I agree with robanga to a degree. Sure, there are some policy differences here and there but ultimately both the Dems and Reps are bought and sold by the same wealthy individuals and corporations. It's not uncommon for people outside the U.S. to view our two major political parties as Right and Further Right as neither one would qualify as truly Left of center (unless you do what we do and just move center over to the right).

Did the PATRIOT Act sunset under Obama? Nope, and it won't under Romney either (if he's elected). Do we have Habeas corpse back yet? Nope, still waiting on that one. GitMo? Still there. Does the current administration think they have the right to execute American Citizens w/o due process? They do, and most likely so will the next POTUS. The government doesn't just hand back powers like these. Do I think the gay community has a better chance at equality under Obama than Romney? Yes, but it's not like Obama has been leading a charge fight for equality.

In any race the lesser of two evils can be found but I'm still waiting for a day when I can vote for a good, or even great, candidate instead of constantly having to settle for who I dislike the least.
__________________
Looking For Lenny - documentary about comedian Lenny Bruce's timeless impact on stand-up comedy & Free Speech.
Netflix, iTunes, Amazon
LethalWolfe is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 01:49 PM   #29
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
So if they block stuff you agree with then you will cheer... hmm sounds familiar.
The GOP is simply just blocking things. Thing they agree with. Legislation that was their own until Obama agreed to it.

Not to mention the huge backlog of judges that haven't been filled, making it much easier for big business to fight cases brought forward by individuals simply by stalling until the plaintiff can't afford it anymore.

There is alot more to this filibuster, stall everything, if it passes delay the implementation long enough that people forget who did it, tactic than just "no".
NT1440 is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 01:55 PM   #30
BladesOfSteel
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
This is from the liberal Wall Street Journal, but I'm sure you can find a more conservative link to back it up...

So, still want to provide the links from Heritage blasting their own idea?

(edit) To anyone wondering about Romney's evolution on RomneyCare and ObamaCare, here's an interesting take on RomneyCandidateCare. No idea who Families USA is, but it's an interesting read. Here.
So over 20 years ago, the Heritage Foundation wrote about their idea of Healthcare. Too bad that when they said back in 1989 that people should be required to buy insurance, they didn't mean the same thing that Obama and the dems meant.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...age/52951140/1

Quote:
The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.

My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid "with a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy."

My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.

So why the change in this position in the past 20 years?

First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn't needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage. For example, the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer or nonemployer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement.

Also, advances in "risk adjustment" tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees' coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s. That's why we believe that President Obama and others are dead wrong about the need for a mandate.
As for other links...
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/30/...oming-in-2013/

http://www.heritage.org/issues/health-care/obamacare

http://www.heritage.org/research/com...-for-obamacare
__________________
Let's just say I own a lot of apple products.
BladesOfSteel is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 02:16 PM   #31
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
So over 20 years ago, the Heritage Foundation wrote about their idea of Healthcare. Too bad that when they said back in 1989 that people should be required to buy insurance, they didn't mean the same thing that Obama and the dems meant.
I'm sure the good people at Heritage would have said the same thing when Romney was enacting RomneyCare, a healthcare plan based primarily on the Heritage Foundation model. At least we can agree that the Heritage Foundation came up with the plan put forth by Newt Gingrich and the GOP as their alternative to Hillary Clinton's universal healthcare proposal. It is that same plan that became the basis for RomneyCare, and eventually ObamaCare.

In other words, we agree that the GOP opposed their own idea.
mcrain is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 03:02 PM   #32
BladesOfSteel
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
I'm sure the good people at Heritage would have said the same thing when Romney was enacting RomneyCare, a healthcare plan based primarily on the Heritage Foundation model. At least we can agree that the Heritage Foundation came up with the plan put forth by Newt Gingrich and the GOP as their alternative to Hillary Clinton's universal healthcare proposal. It is that same plan that became the basis for RomneyCare, and eventually ObamaCare.

In other words, we agree that the GOP opposed their own idea.
I don't agree to that.

What the Heritage Foundation said about healthcare back in 1989 is not what was passed by the Dems. They may have used the same terminology, but it didn't mean the same thing.
__________________
Let's just say I own a lot of apple products.
BladesOfSteel is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 03:07 PM   #33
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
I don't agree to that.

What the Heritage Foundation said about healthcare back in 1989 is not what was passed by the Dems. They may have used the same terminology, but it didn't mean the same thing.
I didn't say they were "identical," but that the idea for ObamaCare came from, originated from, the Heritage Foundation. It was their idea!
mcrain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 03:19 PM   #34
BladesOfSteel
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
I didn't say they were "identical," but that the idea for ObamaCare came from, originated from, the Heritage Foundation. It was their idea!
Wow.

Okay, I'll grant you that back in 1989 the Heritage Foundation said that a "mandate" would be good.

But what they meant by "mandate" and what Obamacare says is "mandate" are entirely opposite ideas.
__________________
Let's just say I own a lot of apple products.
BladesOfSteel is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 03:42 PM   #35
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
Wow.

Okay, I'll grant you that back in 1989 the Heritage Foundation said that a "mandate" would be good.

But what they meant by "mandate" and what Obamacare says is "mandate" are entirely opposite ideas.
Really? Prove it. The mandate that they described is the same mandate that Newt and his buddies suggested was the GOP "better" way of handling health care reform. It was that same mandate that Romney pushed in Mass.

Here's Mittens talking about it... (typical liberal cite btw)

Quote:
ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

ROMNEY: OK.
Forbes
mcrain is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 04:22 PM   #36
Thomas Veil
macrumors 68020
 
Thomas Veil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Reality
Back to the original topic...

As usual, Krugman is right on the money, if you'll pardon the unintentional pun. An amicable Romney-House relationship is more than a dumb reason to vote for Mittens: it's succumbing to political blackmail. It's paying ransom to the GOP.

I say that even though I agree that the House will probably make constant attempts to kneecap Obama and the Senate again. As I've said before, though, we can only hope that after another two years of this crap the voters be ready to throw these tea partiers out for being worse than useless.

As for Harry Reid...I wish he hadn't said that. It was wrong, infinitely wrong, when Eric Cantor organized the House Republicans to turn into a bunch of thugs and form a legislative blockade. And while I understand where Reid is coming from, it's wrong now as well.
Thomas Veil is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 11:01 AM   #37
robanga
macrumors 68000
 
robanga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
Really? Ask a gay person who feels there rights are threatened by one party but protected by the other. Or the parents who are reaching a lifetime max on their insurance for their sick child and Romney now wants to put them in that position again. Or the women who uses planned parenthood and is faced with it being closed down. The two parties are NOT the same. Not at all. And I am sick of hearing people like you say that they are. You couldn't be more wrong.
Paranoia? How in the world does one party threaten their rights? The rights to what specifically? Show me where in either parties platform it calls for shutting down planned parenthood?

The two parties are exactly the same. The both support corporate interests at the expense of the middle and lower classes. You can lay the banking débâcle, the innumerable corporate bailouts, the rewarding of moving jobs overseas, the failed tax policies on both parties doorsteps. The other stuff is extraneous rhetoric.
__________________
Soli Deo gloria
robanga is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 11:13 AM   #38
Prototypical
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Nebraska
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodimus Prime View Post
The GOP should of kick the Tea Party out early on at let them form a 3rd party. That way you would have the concerative Tea Party. Moderate GOP and then liberal dems.

The GOP could of taken the more moderate Republicans and the more conservative Dems (aka blue dogs)
I'm seriously hoping that a Republican loss today will get the ball rolling on this. The Tea Party could become even angrier and more conservative, and break away from the existing Republican party. It would take all of the fringe lunatics with it, allowing more reasonable minds to regain control of the true GOP and get it back to where it belongs. A three party system is far preferable to the current mess we have now.
Prototypical is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 02:23 PM   #39
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by robanga View Post
Paranoia? How in the world does one party threaten their rights? The rights to what specifically? Show me where in either parties platform it calls for shutting down planned parenthood?

The two parties are exactly the same. The both support corporate interests at the expense of the middle and lower classes. You can lay the banking débâcle, the innumerable corporate bailouts, the rewarding of moving jobs overseas, the failed tax policies on both parties doorsteps. The other stuff is extraneous rhetoric.
Wow, are you out of touch. Romney has specifically said he wants to shut down Planned Parenthood. But if a party platform is your litmus test, then you can look to the GOP platform on abortion and gay rights to answer the other question.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 11:35 AM   #40
robanga
macrumors 68000
 
robanga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
Wow, are you out of touch. Romney has specifically said he wants to shut down Planned Parenthood. But if a party platform is your litmus test, then you can look to the GOP platform on abortion and gay rights to answer the other question.
I did not vote for him so i have not followed that closely but wasn't their platform or statements about removing federal funding for PP, not actually shutting it down per se?
__________________
Soli Deo gloria
robanga is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 02:28 PM   #41
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by robanga View Post
I did not vote for him so i have not followed that closely but wasn't their platform or statements about removing federal funding for PP, not actually shutting it down per se?
Removing funding for it would effectively shut it down in many places. The intent was clear from Romney himself:



And you have to remember that these things are a very very small part of the budget. Eliminating them is political, not financial.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2012, 05:10 PM   #42
robanga
macrumors 68000
 
robanga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
Removing funding for it would effectively shut it down in many places. The intent was clear from Romney himself:

YouTube: video

And you have to remember that these things are a very very small part of the budget. Eliminating them is political, not financial.
Got you. Thanks for the link. I'm going to look up how much but sure if you have a line item examination of how taxes are spent i can definitely see how people would be upset about a lot of spending. My point is if PP wants to exist and get funding through any source they choose

Politicizing something as much as a lightning rod is that is just more rhetoric.
__________________
Soli Deo gloria
robanga is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DC Politics As Usual Huntn Politics, Religion, Social Issues 43 Jul 18, 2014 09:15 AM
Introduction to politics? zephyr2095 Community Discussion 10 Jun 23, 2014 05:13 AM
The Politics of Sandy bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 41 Nov 6, 2012 02:35 PM
Parallels extortion/blackmail !!! MACza Mac Applications and Mac App Store 41 Sep 27, 2012 12:21 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:52 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC