Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > The debates      Home login  
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 8
The debatesPage 1 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Looked to me like the former freshman 1-term senator fron Illinois got his clock cleaned by the former 1-term governer of Massachusetts.

And one of them looked a bit caught off-guard by it.
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 9
The debates
Posted: 10/4/2012 10:24:06 AM
Obama seemed unprepared, and unconcerned.
A radio guy in L.A. said this: Barack Obama definitely loves the JOB of being
President, it's the WORK he doesn't care for.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 10
view profile
The debates
Posted: 10/4/2012 10:54:40 AM
I can't wait for the foreign policy debate. I want to watch the Liar-in-Chief try to weasel out of his administration's cover-up of what happened in Libya, for starters. If last night is any indication, he is going to get his head handed to him.

His appeasement of Islamists encouraged Muslim jihadists to murder our ambassador and three other Americans in an attack on U.S. territory--on September 11, no less, and in Benghazi, a notorious hotbed for jihad. And as if that scandalous incompetence weren't bad enough, the administration then lied through its teeth to try to hide it. Now it says it's still unsafe for FBI agents to go to the site to investigate. Very convenient.

It makes life easy for our enemies when we have a President who secretly sympathizes with them. His wife could have been speaking for both of them when she said this was a "just plain mean" country she had never been proud of in her adult life.
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 11
The debates
Posted: 10/4/2012 12:53:10 PM
They are all versions of whoever-care. Obamacare is a more expensive version of Romneycare. Romneycare is the closest version to Israelcare.

Thats the difference. Its the way its implemented, how costs are controlled, & which special interest is NOT raping the system. Thats why many of us, including many Democrats want Obamacare REPLACED with a system that that is not an out-of-control moneypit controlled by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

I want my state representatives to decide, much like we do with our school systems.

Obamacare wasnt a bipartisan effort. It was a "take it or else" 1-party enactment. No Republicans voted for it, VERY UNLIKE ROMNEYCARE IN MASSACHUSETS.
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 12
The debates
Posted: 10/4/2012 1:08:52 PM

Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care

Thats because the same health care costs far more here to implement. Remember that 45 minute procedure that costs $4500??? Iit costs $1500 over there.

We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs.

Agreed. Bringing doctors, nurses & hospital payscales down to a sane level would be a start....much like in Israel. Pretty sure no Israeli hospital CEOs are making $3 million per year, & no Israeli specialists are charging $200 for a 10 minute office visit.

Israel has a mandate and caps on coverage

And that is what makes it affordable, which makes it work.

Israel regulates its health care system aggressively, requiring all residents to carry insurance and capping revenue for various parts of the country’s health care system. Israel created a national health care system in 1995, largely funded through payroll and general tax revenue. The government provides all citizens with health insurance: They get to pick from one of four competing, nonprofit plans. Those insurance plans have to accept all customers—including people with pre-existing conditions—and provide residents with a broad set of government-mandated benefits.

I agree 100%.
The problem is, in the USA, the current health care mandates dont address any real cost cutting. It only rewards the rapers of the system with a tax increase to continue to pay the obscene costs associated with this crime. Hospital CEOs will continue to make $3 million per year, & that 45 minute procedure will continue to cost $4500, but now we will all pay a tax to cover these obscene costs that Israel doesnt seem to have.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 15
view profile
The debates
Posted: 10/4/2012 4:56:57 PM

Since you quoted what she said, I implore you to site that reference because frankly, I think that's "just plain mean" and a bunch of bullshit, again, even for you....

Are you questioning that Mrs. Obama said that? It's been all over the news for several years now, and she evidently liked the line about not having been proud of this country that she has used it several more times in speeches. Since you've already decided I'm lying about her saying those things, I don't know why you think I'd bother to document it for you.

I see once again you're responding to me with barnyard language and personal insults. Maybe you think the forum rules allow that. But I understand why you feel the need to rely on those things. You don't have the facts or reasoning to rebut the things I say, so you take the mindless way out by attacking me instead.
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 16
The debates
Posted: 10/4/2012 9:02:07 PM

I guess all the usual suspects of liberal persuasion decided to be no shows on this thread when their dude is an obvious loser

In case you forgot; elections are won (and lost) at the polls; not at the ratings game!

What does obama need to do to turn the tide

1. Fire John Kerry as his debate coach; having JK as coach is like hiring the French to fight your wars; its a guaranteed loss!

2. Call MR out on all his lies and double talk! MR is an empty suit playing political 3 card monte

3. Illustrate that MR has contempt and disdain for average working class pple; as it was borne out in secret fund raiser recording; while he seeks to further enrich the mega-rich!

4. get some attitude; get some zest and vigor; don't allow yourself to get punked out by MR (the biggest of all punks)
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 19
view profile
The debates
Posted: 10/4/2012 11:00:56 PM
Kind of funny to hear the dimocrats trying to cover Barack Obama's rear by portraying him as the victim of lies. Give us a break. This sorry excuse for a President is on very shaky ground when he questions anyone's honesty, because he himself is a habitual, shameless liar.
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 21
The debates
Posted: 10/5/2012 7:08:22 AM
Here are key excerpts of of what she said in Feb. 2008 in Wisconsin:

we're a divided country, we're a country that is "just downright mean," (There it is right there)

"...we are "guided by fear," (She sounds just like the Republicans you chastise)

"...we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. " (Not sure how this is ANY DIFFERENT than the "47%" comment, but it got NO coverage compared to it....hmmm)

Read more:
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 23
The debates
Posted: 10/5/2012 8:35:53 AM
Oy, I think you're ignoring the whole point of debate.
IF Romney said a lie, it was up to OBAMA, then and there, to burn him
on it. Having teams of video rewinders and fact checkers don't help, because
It's over.
Maybe he will do great next time.
He used to be an excellent talker, if nothing else.
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 25
The debates
Posted: 10/5/2012 9:33:07 AM
So I guess I looked in all the wrong places then, my bad..

Its not that you looked in "all the wrong places , its simply that the major mainstream media didnt report it. I Wonder why???...probably because it wasnt secretly recorded.

Either that, or there are different rules depending on which party said what....

It seems funny that somebody says 47% of Americans are dependent on government, & it goes viral, but somebody else makes a profoundly identical statement saying that we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents, & nobody blinks an eye.
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 26
The debates
Posted: 10/5/2012 9:38:19 AM
Tell ya what, why not try reading the comments at the end of political stories, from different people. These are not the talking heads of either MSNBC or FOX, these are the actual voters. They say almost entirely "Mitt is a liar"!

Hahahahaha!!! Only by left wing agendists on the left wing agendist blogs you continually post as gospel on here!

Tell ya what, why not try reading the comments at the end of political stories, from different sites OTHER than your cherished agendist blogsites. They say almost entirely "Obama is a liar". Hahahahaha!!!
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 28
The debates
Posted: 10/5/2012 6:35:05 PM

I haven't really heard from any "middle of the road" ppl or ppl like me who just don't know yet. Does anyone still wonder why I am confused??

Then just look at the FACTS!

1. Fact #1. MR is a guy who has had foreign bank accounts so as to avoid paying taxes in the US. He recently pulled his money outta the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. As Warren Buffet says; MR is making money by staying 1 step in front of the tax-man! Is it illegal? No it isn't; But is it shifty and disingenuous, especially when he wants to close middle class tax loop holes? YOU decide!

2. Fact #2 MR wants to overhaul the Medicare system (and it is indeed in need of overhaul) but he is targeting those under age 60; He (and his Veep Ryan) want to institute a voucher system (which he side stepped when asked of it); whereby when an individual is unfortunate enough to have a serious disease and racks up enough bills to go over his voucher; he will have to go "tin cup" in hand to see if anyone will cut him a break; he/she (or me and you) will have to face bankruptcy (in your senior years)in order to get on the welfare rolls, if you happen to be lucky enough to live through it. When this happens to those of us reaching retirement age; guys like MR and Ryan will be LONG GONE, and only the legacy will remain! Thus, his solution is for those seniors (who happen to be living longer these days--> thanks to Medicare)is to PULL the rug from under their feet, and tell them to sink or swim if they get ill! It will be kinda like the Bataan death march for US seniors

3. Fact # 3. MR says that he'll create 12 million jobs but gives no specifics! Yet like an Indonesian TSUNAMI, all these jobs are gonna appear outta no-where! He is not one to stimulate infrastructure related jobs, and does NOT want to reverse the Bush tax cuts (because he says its bad for business). Meanwhile the Bush Tax cuts have been in effect since 2002 and no such job JACK-pot has appeared! Today, the Labor dept announced that the unemployment rate was below 8%, for the first time since the 2008 financial crisis and MR says that it isn't an indication of anything! He's entitled to his views but I'd bet that if the Labor dept said that the unemployment rate was ZERO, he'd say the same thing!

4. Fact #4. MR clearly said that he wants to undue or repeal Obama care, yet it was modeled under his own plan that he enacted as the MA governor. When asked what he's gonna replace it with; we hear DEAD silence, or just folderol about how it has to be put in the hands of each state (as though the states have an unlimited piggybank from which to take money--without having to KILL the tax payers at the state level through higher property & sales taxes;which translates in higher rents) With ALL THIS SAID, keep in mind that MR and all the politicians have AWARDED themselves the BEST healthcare coverage in the WORLD, with no caps or limits on medications, MD visits, cost caps on tests, hospitalizations, etc. that we taxpayers are paying for!

5. Fact #5. MR says that he champions business; yet when he was in the business world, he outsourced work, fired or laid off more workers in his firms as possible to meet the bottom line. Yet we are to believe that this man is gonna foster an atmosphere benevolent for job production in the US .

6. Fact #6. MR has clear contempt for 47% of the population that he feels don't pay taxes (therefore clearly not worthy of anything from his standing). MR has since changed his story (only 25 days later), and admitted that he made a mistake (though obviously saying it because he got caught!); yet he himself ends up paying barely over 13% on his income (a far lower percentage than ANY wage earner in the 47% of pple he was talking about)! Yet, MR feels (on one side of his mouth) that they should somehow be paying MORE taxes, but on the other side of his mouth; he DOES NOT want to raise anybody's taxes!

7. Fact #7. MR wants to amp-up spending on the military (yet the joint chiefs of staff, don't feel its needed to that degree), but he is worried about the deficit spiraling outta control! He has made no BONES about initiating a war of aggression (at Israel's request) with Iran; despite the pentagon's report that war is not (yet) necessary! MR has NO PROBLEM igniting expensive wars (he can't win) using the blood and sweat of our US sons and daughters (But not anyone of his kids); but he wants to control spending!

8. Fact #8. MR is critical of Obama's foreign policy yet he has manged to insult just about every country he's been to visit in the past few months; who happen to be our allies!
having said all this, I am not a fan of Obama; I'm simply for the lesser of 2 evils. there are things that Obama has done that could have been done better; but Obama started off in the financial pit and had to contend with a spiteful GOP that had already made plans to make him a 1 term president at ALL costs (check out Mitch McConnell's statements). He rolled up his sleeves and took a chance; he fought to repeal the Bush tax cuts (that could have shored up the treasury by a good amount); he fought to defend the common man who was being victimized by greedy insurance companies (pre-existing conditions). Though imperfect as he may be; I see him as a man of The People! Now if you are in the same LEAGUE as MR money wise, then by all means vote for him! But if not, then you should vote for someoen who is gonna be in your corner! Anyone who thinks we can get outta this financial mess in a jiffy, by some secret GOP formula is just being taken in; or getting had. IMO, anyone in the working middle-class (who is NOT a pure racist) that sides with MR has to have a screw loose somewhere!
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 29
view profile
The debates
Posted: 10/6/2012 12:30:49 PM

So I don't like when anyone disrespects the President (of either party) in a public forum, so sue me!

My apologies. I am convinced of everything I have ever said on these forums about Mr. Obama. I have never felt this about any other President in my lifetime--but I don't believe he has this country's best interests at heart. I have no respect for him, I believe his views are fundamentally un-American, and I think he has abused and demeaned the presidency. All the same this is your thread, and out of respect for your preferences I'll confine my attacks on him to other ones.
Joined: 4/16/2010
Msg: 33
The debates
Posted: 10/7/2012 11:09:23 AM

Tell ya what, why not try reading the comments at the end of political stories, from different people. These are not the talking heads of either MSNBC or FOX, these are the actual voters. They say almost entirely "Mitt is a liar"!

Well, there you go. I guess it's settled then.

I end up reading a lot of articles that Yahoo picks up because I go there for mail and sports news, and the comments there tend to lean the other way. That must be where all the paid right wing plants hang out.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 34
view profile
The debates
Posted: 10/7/2012 2:03:35 PM

Let me give you a conservative's take on the issues you raised. If they were strictly matters of state or local law, it would be simple--I would want government to do whatever it was I favored. But the problem is that, rightly or wrongly, they involve the federal government. And while states have inherent authority to do all sorts of things, the United States does not. It has only the powers the states gave it in the Constitution, and no others whatsoever.

So take government funding of education. Public schools used to be paid for almost completely by local property taxes. Now, they pay only about one quarter of the cost--and the schools aren't nearly as good. If California wants to spend on public schools, as a resident I can decide whether I think a particular proposal is worthwhile. But what constitutional authority does the House of Representatives have to spend for education at all? I'd say it's doubtful it has any, let alone the authority to maintain a cabinet-level department devoted to education. There is no constitutional right to education.

But even if there were no question of constitutional legitimacy, there would still be the fact the Education Department was Jimmy Carter's reward to the public teachers' unions for helping him get elected. And I believe helping our children is the last thing those unions care about. They would rather protect complete incompetents or even sex perverts from being fired than open a better future to poor black kids in D.C., for example, by letting their parents have vouchers to send them to private schools. The people who run these unions care only about fattening their own and their members' already inflated salaries, and to hell with the school kids.

I know Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court's other abortion cases pretty well. Roe was authored by a rookie justice, and it may be one of the Court's all-time ten worst decisions. It uses no legal reasoning at all to support its holding that abortion is a fundamental constitutional right. It just decrees it, and that's it. Even twenty years ago, when the Court agreed to take Casey v. Planned Parenthood, most legal analysts thought it was going to use it to overrule Roe. As it turned out, it only overruled part of it, but it no longer tries to claim abortion is a fundamental right. I personally favor abortion in all but a few circumstances. But I don't believe it raises any constitutional question, and that means it's a matter for each state to decide. If the Supreme Court overruled Roe tomorrow, nothing would prevent all fifty states from making abortion legal.

Like abortion, family law is a state matter. I'm not particularly concerned with whether California authorizes same-sex marriage. But I am very concerned about the federal government once again making up a constitutional right as a way to club the states into submission. The constitutional issue is too complicated to get into here, but I think the majority of the people in a state have the right to regulate public morality. A majority in all fifty states apparently thinks incest and polygamy are immoral, for example, and most of us aren't outraged that the rights of would-be polygamists or incestors to happiness and equal treatment are being cruelly denied. But I don't see how any state could keep those things (and others) illegal for long if the Supreme Court ever required same-sex marriage to be legal throughout the U.S.

If the majority of people of the state of Miasma are bluenoses who want to close all shops on Sunday, or completely prohibit alcohol, or ban fornication on church property, or make dog owners cover their animals' private parts in public, or do some other fantastic thing. I may think it's laughable. But I also know that unless it violates some constitutionally guaranteed right, what they do is their business, and no one else's. A lot of Americans still believe, as most traditionally have, that homosexual sodomy is immoral. Since there is no constitutional right to engage in it, let alone to sanctify the practice with marriage, I don't believe there is any legitimate authority for forcing all fifty states to allow same-sex marriage.

A series of Supreme Court decisions has defined the limits of how much religion a state can allow in its public schools. These limits are not crystal-clear, but it's pretty clear that the kind of complete ban on religion in schools you seem to favor would be unconstitutional. The reason is that the two clauses of the First Amendment that deal with religion overlap somewhat. That means that if you try to make the wall between church and state too solid by interpreting the Establishment Clause too strictly, you are sure to violate the right to free exercise of religion. As the Court has struck the balance, the wall is has a few small openings in it here and there. If the ladies at First Presbyterian start a fire in the church kitchen while getting ready for the bake sale, or if one of the flock gets robbed in the parking lot, the state law can't force local fire and police departments to ignore those calls because responding to them would violate the separation of church and state.

Defense spending is about 5% of the value of all goods and services the country produces at home--the GDP. That is pretty low by historic standards--some people think dangerously low. Look up what that figure was during the Kennedy or Eisenhower administrations, for example, when most Americans didn't seem to think it was too high. And also look at how far the military had been allowed to decline here and in Britain during the 1930's, largely because of the economic strain of the Great Depression. There is no question that weakness encouraged both Germany and Japan to be more aggressive than their leaders otherwise would have dared. What you see Iran doing now, which is more dangerous for all of us than any other single thing, is only possible because of fifteen or twenty years of weakness by this country. Israel is going to have to use force before long to do what the U.S. should have done--and could have done without too much risk--years ago.
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 38
view profile
The debates
Posted: 10/8/2012 10:49:23 PM
In the case of where that would put us, we would have to have growth in GDP of 5% a year.

Why? If GDP stayed the same, increasing the defense budget by $250 billion a year would just raise it from something less than 5% of GDP to 6-7%. I think it was at least 7% when Kennedy was president. What the U.S. spends on defense is a fraction of what it spends on social welfare programs. The first responsibility of the U.S. government is national security--that's the main reason the U.S. was created in the first place.

who has a matching standing army

That army is a lot smaller than it was thirty or so years ago. Depending on how you count them, there are only about ten active-duty divisions now. Various non-political analysts who have studied the problem pretty carefully have been saying for a long time now that the U.S. needs to create at least one more, and preferably two.

There is no Russia.

Really? I hadn't heard that. The last I knew, it had a couple thousand nuclear weapons on missiles that could reach any place in this country. There is nothing even approaching a stable democratic government there--Putin is a would-be Stalin. Just look at the way Russia has dealt with Georgia, let alone Chechnya.

Are we REALLY talking defense, or is this something to give us the ability to use offense whenever we choose?

The ability to take the offensive has been the foundation of this country's national defense, under administrations of both parties, ever since WWII. The most important weapons systems we have--ballistic missiles, attack submarines, aircraft carriers--are purely offensive.

We have what 9(?) aircraft carrier groups

I think it's eleven right now, but some of them are always in port, or training, or out of commission for a year or more being overhauled. The plan is to have two or three of them on the oceans at once normally, with two or three more available in a major crisis. Considering the size of the oceans, the need to keep them safe for commerce, and the fact there are regimes like the ones in North Korea and Iran, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 39
The debates
Posted: 10/11/2012 7:45:48 PM
Smokin Joe Biden
cuttin' loose some good left hooks on Lyin Ryan
Smokin Joe was cool and is no push-over; he trained well for this bout
All Ryan could do is repeat his talking points; no substance!

That bit about how MR & Ryan are fundamentally opposed to abortion
and with the prospect of appointing conservative justices
is not gonna fly too well with most women!

Maybe they can make an Obama mask for smokin Joe on Tuesday
If he had debated MR, he'd put him under the table;
no way he would have let MR get away with his lies
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 41
view profile
The debates
Posted: 10/12/2012 4:19:54 AM
you wrote

''That's why I take issue with ppl disrespecting other ppl; authoritative figures most, but everyone really. ''

lol now im not having a pop here hen im just making an observation. if someone believes that people in
authority are divs then why show them any respect?
i believe respect has to be earned. now the general public i just shake my head as they wander around like
lost sheep. but politicians and jumped up suits who demand respect because they play the 'dont you know who i am?'' card are worthy of only abuse and ridicule.
the whole of the united kingdom establishment in all four nations are in my eyes at least not worthy to be called british

some of the liberal types on here who i spar with i also have pm's with them because outside of politics there is always something that is common ground.
and there are also some on here of the liberal persuasion that this delusional celt would not urinate on if they were on fire. and others who set themselves up as know alls who deserve nothing but scorn.

as one of my liberal sparring partners said ''Petygrace, these political forums, are filled with venom from both sides, I admit I am one of the worst.''
lol and you are gadgie, you are

the only thing with sitting on the fence grace is that you end up with a sore arse.

as for myself i have fascistic views. renationalise all our heavy industries, free health care for those who need it, a military who will be used to defend the uk only, free education for all citizens, produce our own white goods instead of importing them all, out of europe, out of nato, ineptness in senior management would result in unemployment and if the ineptness caused hurt or death then put the twats on trial.

but hey thats just my views now i am away to don my blackshirt and go on a ridicule a liberal hunt. (not to be read as rhyming slang i actually meant liberal hunt)

lol just seen this on the vp debate on al jazeera

Beitzelaw RT @morgan_murphy: Biden's teeth are so white they're voting for Romney. #VPDebate
Joined: 10/12/2011
Msg: 43
The debates
Posted: 10/12/2012 5:54:56 AM
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, blames Republicans and Candidate Paul Ryan for Slow Economy
By Jennifer Liberto at CNNMoney
The outspoken CEO of the nation's largest bank, JPMorgan Chase is lashing out at candidate Paul Ryan and House Republicans for playing politics and the mishandling of a host of economic issues -- from the fiscal cliff to Simpson Bowles. Dimon, whose JP Morgan Bank beat the street this morning, was speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
“If Washington had passed the Bowles-Simpson tax plan last year, the US economy would be booming.”
The plan was a bipartisan proposal that was commissioned by the Obama Administration and proposed eliminating tax loopholes so that more people and companies pay taxes. “Paul Ryan and house tea party Republicans blocked Simpson-Bowles to further their own agenda rather than provide for the nation.”
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 44
The debates
Posted: 10/12/2012 8:01:50 AM

The plan was a bipartisan proposal that was commissioned by the Obama Administration and proposed eliminating tax loopholes so that more people and companies pay taxes. “Paul Ryan and house tea party Republicans blocked Simpson-Bowles to further their own agenda rather than provide for the nation.”

....and this is now part of Romney's plan. Not the entire Simpson-Bowles plan, but the closing of loopholes so that more people and companies pay taxes. I wonder if a Wall St. banking industry CEO tycoon such as Jami Dimon supports that part of the plan?

It makes me wonder, though, when a Wall St. banking industry CEO tycoon such as Jami Dimon wants the untouched Simpson-Bowles plan passed so rabidly.....sound famliar?

BTW, way to go cross-posting the exact same post on 4 different threads in a 20 minute span.
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 46
The debates
Posted: 10/14/2012 10:54:25 PM
At Count

I'd say that the problem is waste and low standards for teachers.

the problem goes deeper than. The japanese (or asian) counter-part of the typical american highschool student, is already well versed in advanced studies/sciences--such as calculus; and is often multi-lingual by the time he or she graduates, while the avg US highschool grad couldn't hold a candle to him. The standards are low FOR EVERYONE, not just the teachers. I agree that there is waste, and also parental apathy plays a big part in a child's education, or lack of! The whole system needs to be re-built from the ground up!

If a woman has a right to chose what is done to her body (and I agree that she does) then why do we have laws against prostitution or other laws regulating voluntary sexual relationships?

Ummm, maybe because prostitution is largely a public health hazard! In countries where prostitution regulation is lax, you have HIV and VD running rampant. The only exception might be in Holland but only because everyone adheres to the public health rules/guidelines imposed.

Why does the federal government get to decide which foods and drugs we can ingest?

Ummm, I guess that its to keep greedy drug companies from selling you 'snake-oil' or other sh!t that is harmful to your body; its something that we ought to be grateful about (as imperfect as FDA may be, its better than nothing!)
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 50
view profile
The debates
Posted: 10/15/2012 10:42:28 PM

Canada is doing much better with education.... and also the federal debt ...

Canada debt per person is about $20,000 and American debt per person is about $50,000

The biggest reason Canada is in better shape than the US is we have one tenth of the population while sitting on vast amounts of natural resources. Our manufacturing sector has no more hope of competing with the Chinese than the Americans.

Medicare for All Canadians ... more Social programs ... Better emigration policy ...

I agree that we're in better shape as far as healthcare is concerned, although our system is far from perfect (can't seem to keep enough of our own doctors at home.... keep stealing all of the doctors educated in Africa... isn't that nice of us).

As far as social programs go.... not so sure about that. The US has unemployment benifits, food stamps, lunch programs for school children, rent subsidies, social security... what exactly do we have that they are missing?

Also, immigration might be more of a problem if we shared a border with a third world country.

The major difference between Canada and the USA is the government is more PROGRESSIVE ..

This seems to be the consensus going 'round. Of course this isn't really reflected by our tax code. We have lower corporate tax rates, also, we have the most REGRESSIVE tax of all... sales tax (small business doesn't pay GST... not so sure about big businesses).

^^^^funny that.... all of the socialist European countries have sales tax as well. Also strange that a conservative province like Alberta doesn't have PST.


All things that Harper is slowing chipping away at in his Bush light kind of way.

.... we do however have fear mongerers. In this way we are very similar to the US.
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 52
view profile
The debates
Posted: 10/16/2012 1:45:38 PM

5 Facts You Need to Know for Tonight's Presidential Debate
October 16, 2012 |

Debates move quickly. The candidates toss out facts at breakneck speeds, trying to get across their entire plans in just 90 minutes. Tonight, Obama and Romney will square off in a debate that’s been billed as high-steaks — Obama will seek to regain the momentum, while Romney hopes to sustain his.

So as the candidates barrel through the details of their respective plans, here are some facts you should keep on hand:

1. The deficit is largely a product of tax cuts and wars. The newest report out from the Congressional Budget Office shows that we have a still-large but slowing budget shortfall, with the deficit at $1.1 trillion [2] for 2012. But the issues that are adding the most to our deficit aren’t health care costs or the stimulus; wars and tax cuts [3] are responsible for that:

2. When US officials asked for more security in Libya, they wanted it in Tripoli, not Benghazi. The attack on the United States embassy in Libya was a tragedy that has had a confusing aftermath [4]. Republicans have claimed that employees at the Benghazi embassy asked for more security in the days before the attack, but actually it was the embassy in Tripoli [5], not Benghazi where the attack occurred, that sought longer hours for its security guards.

3. 72 million people would be uninsured under Romney’s health plan. A recent study of Romney’s health care plan shows that it would increase health care premiums for most Americans, and would leave 72 million people uninsured [6]. If the Affordable Care Act were repealed, 60 million Americans would remain uninsured. Under Obama’s plan, that number is expected to drop to 27.1 million.

4. If the DREAM Act were passed, it would add $329 billion to the economy by 2030. President Obama has vowed the pass the DREAM Act — a bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for young, undocumented students and service members — while candidate Romney has said he’d veto it. According to a joint report [7] by the Center for American Progress and the Partnership for a New American Economy, passing the DREAM Act “would add $329 billion to the U.S. economy and create 1.4 million new jobs by 2030.”

5. The “six studies” that lend credibility to Romney’s tax plan are 3 blog posts, 2 conservative reports, 1 op-ed. The idea that a Romney administration could give a 20 percent tax cut to everyone, and then pay for it by eliminating loopholes and deductions for the wealthy has been strong refuted by the Tax Policy Center. Romney has cited six other “studies” that confirm his plan could work, but those are dubious: One is a report by the conservative Heritage foundation, one is a paper from a former Bush adviser, one is an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and three are blog posts.

Source URL:

Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 54
The debates
Posted: 10/16/2012 4:01:24 PM
This is the Big Kahuna, JOBS :
Fact Check: Job creation versus unemployment
By Tom Foreman, CNN
updated 12:34 PM EDT, Fri October 5, 2012

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that a lot of jobs have been created under Obama's leadership -- 4.4 million by the bureau's latest count. What Obama did not say, however, was that the nation shed 4.3 million jobs during the early days of his term, and that the net gain since he took the oath of office in January 2009 is just 125,000 jobs"

Net gain since 2009 = 125,000 jobs , and we won't even go into whether those jobs are good paying, they are just jobs.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > The debates