Let's assume for the moment...

[ProfJohn]

Seriously, man, try to keep a level head. The government isn't giving anyone something at someone else's expense when it comes to the HC bill. If the parents want to keep their kids on their insurance, they still have to pay the increased premiums.

So you admit that premiums have gone UP do to Obamacare.

I bet people who don't have kids saw their premiums go up as well. Tends to work like that.

You have 100 people and only 3 or 4 have adult children on their insurance. You can change those people $20-30 more a week for each kid so you charge all 100 an extra $5 a week.

Here is the deal:
We know for a fact that premiums went up and we know that extending coverage to adult children is one of the reasons. I know there are other reasons, but I can't detail them because I didn't read the whole article

Next time I see one floating around I'll read it and get back to you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Fuzzy facts from the Prof? Say it isn't so.

Did you actually click on his link??

It is self identified party ID and it does not related to actual vote totals as I pointed out in another post.

Historically it missed the Republican vote by 6 or more points too.

What I said is factually correct based on actual historical vote totals and not some poll taken by phone.

 

[dank69]

So you admit that premiums have gone UP do to Obamacare.

I bet people who don't have kids saw their premiums go up as well. Tends to work like that.

...

How does someone get to be as dishonest as you? You know damn well that when I said increased premiums I was talking about the increased price to add an extra dependant.

 

[ProfJohn]

So only the people with kids are paying more?

People without kids aren't paying more?

 

[Jhhnn]

Did you actually click on his link??

It is self identified party ID and it does not related to actual vote totals as I pointed out in another post.

Historically it missed the Republican vote by 6 or more points too.

What I said is factually correct based on actual historical vote totals and not some poll taken by phone.

What you said is *not* factually correct, and you knew it before posting. It's a Spidey-like attempt too claim "We're the Majority" when that's not true at all.

Republicans are *registered* as such or at least self identify as such, democrats & independents, too. No reliable source indicates that registered Repubs outnumber registered Dems nationwide. Even Gallup, whose bias is Republican, lists party strength as favoring Dems 31 to 29 as of 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

Historical vote totals are meaningless in the face of a large number of independent voters. You knew that, too.

 

[theeedude]

- Herman Cain or another Tea Party favorite wins the Republican nomination and the general election
- Republicans win supermajority control of both the House and Senate

Then.. after a year or two...

- Unemployment and budget deficits remains at or nearly as high as it was in the Obama years
- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid receive only token reforms that don't really cut costs
- Taxes get cut and regulations are eased

These are not unreasonable assumptions, either.. BTW.

What bandwagon will you all jump on in the 2014 and 2016 elections?

New Deal 2.0 bandwagon.

 

[ProfJohn]

What you said is *not* factually correct, and you knew it before posting.

BS

What I said is completely true.

Find me a presidential race since 1968 in which the Republicans got less than 45% of the total vote.

In fact since 1940 there has only been ONE Presidential elections where the Republicans got less than 45% and that was 1964. (not counting 3 way races) That means that enough people who are registered as Democrat or Independent are voting for the GOP in EVERY election for them to get to 45%.

Re-read my comment and try to understand the context of what I am saying as well.

The Republicans have a set base and the Democrats have a set base. Each party will get that many votes no matter who they put up for election.

Which means that each election is decided by the 10-15% of people down the middle who go back and forth.

Those people expected Obama to do certain things when they voted for him and Obama did not follow through on what they wanted. Thus they are going to abandon him in 2012 and put a Republican in office.

It doesn't matter how much the Democrat base loves or hates Obama. All that really matters is that 10-15% group. How they go is how the election goes.

 

[dank69]

So only the people with kids are paying more?

People without kids aren't paying more?

The disagreement isn't whether or not all people are paying more, the disagreement is why they are paying more, and once again, you know this.

The insurance companies claim we are paying more this year because of the healthcare bill, and you are content with that claim because it fits your agenda.

An intellectually honest person can easily look and see that health insurance rates have been steadily increasing for years, sometimes with annual jumps in excess of the ones we are seeing this year, and realize the excuse is total horse shit. But you also know this.

 

[ProfJohn]

An intellectually honest person can easily look and see that health insurance rates have been steadily increasing for years, sometimes with annual jumps in excess of the ones we are seeing this year, and realize the excuse is total horse shit. But you also know this.

And one could look at the jumps that happened this year and pin them on obamacare and I think you know this too.

Neither of us really know the answer since we don't work on the inside. So until we find something definitive we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Jhhnn]

Which means that each election is decided by the 10-15% of people down the middle who go back and forth.

Those people expected Obama to do certain things when they voted for him and Obama did not follow through on what they wanted. Thus they are going to abandon him in 2012 and put a Republican in office.

So, uhh, this is like the battered wife going back to her abuser?

Who's going to beat Obama, anyway? Neither Perry nor Cain will sell outside the Base & neither Romney nor Huntsman will get past the Base in the primaries, nor will they generate enough enthusiasm to send a pissant's motor scooter halfway around a dime if they did.

Here- pick a winner-

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/

 

[Ausm]

So only the people with kids are paying more?

People without kids aren't paying more?

When's the last time your Health insurance rates dropped? When's the last time your health insurance benefits increased? crickets chirping....

 

[zsdersw]

If this country is a pile of shit in two years, do you think I will give a damn about jumping on a party bandwagon? I don't give a damn about jumping on any party bandwagon as it is. Personally I do not vote. Never have, and probably never will.

Then the question posed in the first post is not for you.

Let's also assume that:
A Republican wins the White House.
Republicans control House & Senate but only a simple majority.

And after a few years of Repubs & Dems in the Senate hating each other:
- Unemployment and budget deficits remains at or nearly as high as it was in the Obama years
- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid receive only token reforms that don't really cut costs
- Taxes and regulations who the fuck cares?

These are not unreasonable assumptions, either.. BTW.

What bandwagon will _you_ jump on in the 2014 and 2016 elections?

That's essentially what my original scenario was. I added the supermajorities to see what certain dyed-in-the-wool GOP supporters/apologists would say.

In 2014 I would vote mixed in state/local races, as I always do. In 2016 I won't vote for either presidential candidate (as I've done in 2008 and will do in 2012).

 

[zsdersw]

My prediction for the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections is the only thing that changes will be who the attackers and apologists are. Nothing constructive and beneficial will happen.

If Obama wins in 2012 he will continue to push the same failed strategies and policies.

If a Republican wins in 2012, whether they're a Tea Party favorite or not, the pressure of supporting the continuation of extremely popular and expensive government programs will prevent any real changes that cut costs.

The fighting and amending that Congress does to any and all bills will continue to give both sides a reason to either attack the other side or apologize for and defend their own. This will happen in 2012, 2014, and 2016.

Yes, I know, I have no faith in any politician. The reasons for this are abundant and obvious. The burden of proof rests with those who believe faith in them is justified.

 

[Jhhnn]

If Obama wins in 2012 he will continue to push the same failed strategies and policies.

How is it that policies never implemented due to obstructionism can be said to have "failed"?

 

[zsdersw]

How is it that policies never implemented due to obstructionism can be said to have "failed"?

The stimulus was a failure. It may have prevented things from getting worse, but it was nowhere near as successful as the administration claimed. I'd call that a failure overall.

 

[airdata]

I listened to an Alex Jones video about Herman Cain... and outside of the corporate whore thing I'd have to read up on and verify, he did make some curious points.

And even yesterday on the news I saw this again... They showed a chart. Bachman was the front runner in july, then it was Perry, and now it's Cain and then they had Romney listed as 2nd...

No mention as Ron Paul who has been leading the pack all year.

But about Cain... Where did he come from? I admit he did sound good to me in the debates. But Alex Jones was talking about how they simply have people ' on deck ' for when their candidate becomes in viable. Bachman is crazy. Rick Perry is apparently dumb, racist and who knows what else...

Lets ignore the fact that Ron Paul is up at the top and that other candidates steal his " Crazy " talking points as his own and make them not crazy somehow.

 

[Jhhnn]

The stimulus was a failure. It may have prevented things from getting worse, but it was nowhere near as successful as the administration claimed. I'd call that a failure overall.

Which side of your mouth are you arguing from, anyway?

The one where the stimulus was too small, or the one where govt spends too much?

 

[zsdersw]

Which side of your mouth are you arguing from, anyway?

The one where the stimulus was too small, or the one where govt spends too much?

Neither.

 

[momeNt]

I listened to an Alex Jones video about Herman Cain... and outside of the corporate whore thing I'd have to read up on and verify, he did make some curious points.

And even yesterday on the news I saw this again... They showed a chart. Bachman was the front runner in july, then it was Perry, and now it's Cain and then they had Romney listed as 2nd...

No mention as Ron Paul who has been leading the pack all year.

But about Cain... Where did he come from? I admit he did sound good to me in the debates. But Alex Jones was talking about how they simply have people ' on deck ' for when their candidate becomes in viable. Bachman is crazy. Rick Perry is apparently dumb, racist and who knows what else...

Lets ignore the fact that Ron Paul is up at the top and that other candidates steal his " Crazy " talking points as his own and make them not crazy somehow.

Basically this Fedex commercial is Ron Paul and the other republican candidates.

http://youtu.be/zNCrMEOqHpc

 

[werepossum]

I listened to an Alex Jones video about Herman Cain... and outside of the corporate whore thing I'd have to read up on and verify, he did make some curious points.

And even yesterday on the news I saw this again... They showed a chart. Bachman was the front runner in july, then it was Perry, and now it's Cain and then they had Romney listed as 2nd...

No mention as Ron Paul who has been leading the pack all year.

But about Cain... Where did he come from? I admit he did sound good to me in the debates. But Alex Jones was talking about how they simply have people ' on deck ' for when their candidate becomes in viable. Bachman is crazy. Rick Perry is apparently dumb, racist and who knows what else...

Lets ignore the fact that Ron Paul is up at the top and that other candidates steal his " Crazy " talking points as his own and make them not crazy somehow.

Umm . . . okay. You convinced me, I'll ignore the "fact" that Ron Paul is "up at the top and that other candidates steal his ' Crazy ' talking points as his own and make them not crazy somehow." I suspect this will be easy to do.

 

[xj0hnx]

Rick Perry is apparently dumb, racist and who knows what else...

Jesus, I hate Perry as much as anyone, and he is dumb as a box of rocks, but the dude is not a racist, by a long stretch.

 

[cganesh75]

I listened to an Alex Jones video about Herman Cain... and outside of the corporate whore thing I'd have to read up on and verify, he did make some curious points.

And even yesterday on the news I saw this again... They showed a chart. Bachman was the front runner in july, then it was Perry, and now it's Cain and then they had Romney listed as 2nd...

No mention as Ron Paul who has been leading the pack all year.

But about Cain... Where did he come from? I admit he did sound good to me in the debates. But Alex Jones was talking about how they simply have people ' on deck ' for when their candidate becomes in viable. Bachman is crazy. Rick Perry is apparently dumb, racist and who knows what else...

Lets ignore the fact that Ron Paul is up at the top and that other candidates steal his " Crazy " talking points as his own and make them not crazy somehow.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier

 

[ProfJohn]

No mention as Ron Paul who has been leading the pack all year..

You could have just posted this and we would have understood you and moved on with our lives.

Rom Paul has never lead the pack at any time or any place.

The guy is stuck at 10% and will always be stuck at 10%.

The fact that he is siding with the ACLU on our killing of the terrorists in Yemen is yet another sign of how off the plantation the guy is and why most people will never give him the time of day.