Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='thrustbucket']Knoell,

You seem to be somewhat new here. In these forums, unless you are status quo, you are one man in the center of a forest fire with a bucket of water. You can either toss your bucket in a direction and hope you can run out, or you can soak yourself and hope it keeps the flames away a few seconds longer.

Just some friendly advice: These forums are so entrenched with the far left that you really can't have a fulfilling discussion unless you A) Agree with the majority or B) Have aspirations of being a pinata. That's discussions. If you want to have an argument, you better have as much evidence as you would need to win a court case cut and dry in any court in America to even TRY to argue with these lefties. So don't bother trying until you do - unless you want to make claims like all tea party members are racist, or Bush was the worst president in the nations history - nobody will ask for evidence then.[/QUOTE]


Thanks for the advice haha, It doesn't bother me that they completely avoid arguements by citing past mistakes to justify new ones. "What you dont like obama spending so much? Well, well Bush did! Ha! got you there!"
I live in New York after all, I'm used to being outnumbered, this state is collapsing underneath its own weight. Can you believe that they are talking about massive school budget cuts before they talk about cutting social programs to ease the gigantic budget crises? It is absolutely ridiculous, I'm just so frustrated with the enormous spending to get less than positive results in my state, and the federal government was bad but this is just ridiculous.

One funny story about new york is they actually voted to ban tablesalt in prepared meals at restaurants. How much more involved does the government need to be before people wake up, and realize the government is telling them what to do. Sounds outlandish to these lefties, they think we are just paranoid, but the proof is in what they are voting on and passing.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Anyone care to translate?[/QUOTE]
Nice and simple for you.

I have a 401K.
My 401K is in house stock only.
When Citi sells millions of shares of stock that they apparantly pulled out of there ass, my 401K takes a dive, and I just lost the last year of money I put in.

Simple enough for you?
 
What part of NY are you from?

Anyhoo, are you actually saying the government should just eat the costs so you won't lose out on your (no doubt measly) investment?
 
Yet again you got it wrong strell.

western new york the buffalo area

No, I will make my money back, but I do find it hilarious that wall street is evil because they make millions, but when the government invests in a struggling corporation and make billions it is "Great News!". Let's not forget that they really didn't make anything, and will probably lose 100 billion when it is all finished, as the article states.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yet again you got it wrong strell.

western new york the buffalo area

No, I will make my money back, but I do find it hilarious that wall street is evil because they make millions, but when the government invests in a struggling corporation and make billions it is "Great News!". Let's not forget that they really didn't make anything, and will probably lose 100 billion when it is all finished, as the article states.[/QUOTE]

Not only will they likely lose money, but they'll spend the money they "made" in the process.

Similar to how the government borrowed (i.e.: Printed) money for the TARP loans and, instead of paying it back when it was paid back to them, they just spent it on various vote-buying programs and claimed all was well because it was just money they had lying around from the bank paybacks....
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Not only will they likely lose money, but they'll spend the money they "made" in the process.

Similar to how the government borrowed (i.e.: Printed) money for the TARP loans and, instead of paying it back when it was paid back to them, they just spent it on various vote-buying programs and claimed all was well because it was just money they had lying around from the bank paybacks....[/QUOTE]

Exactly, why reduce the deficit when they can use it to keep themselves in office? Both parties do this, and it is wrong.

Edit: I forgot to mention the "emergency stimulus" that HAD to be passed right then or the economy would collapse! HURRY! But don't worry we won't spend the majority of it until 2010 which happens to be an election year....
 
[quote name='Knoell']Nice and simple for you.

I have a 401K.
My 401K is in house stock only.
When Citi sells millions of shares of stock that they apparantly pulled out of there ass, my 401K takes a dive, and I just lost the last year of money I put in.

Simple enough for you?[/QUOTE]

Having it all in one type of stock, especially something like housing was poor move.

Diversification is key for long-term retirement accounts. So that's on you. Afterall, you conservatives are always preaching personal responsibility!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Having it all in one type of stock, especially something like housing was poor move.

Diversification is key for long-term retirement accounts. So that's on you. Afterall, you conservatives are always preaching personal responsibility![/QUOTE]

But telling people they shouldn't have invested all their money with ol' Bernie isn't nice... ;)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Having it all in one type of stock, especially something like housing was poor move.

Diversification is key for long-term retirement accounts. So that's on you. Afterall, you conservatives are always preaching personal responsibility![/QUOTE]
I agree my stock isnt all in one stock, but I do have to invest in different types citi stocks for a certain amount of time, before I can buy on the open market.
 
The easy thing for a 401K is to just put in in some very diversified mutual fund. I'm lazy, busy and not that money focused so I just went with one of the target year funds where you pick your retirement year and the fund rebalances quarterly with being very aggressive now and getting more and more conservative as you get closer to retirement.

In any case being more risky, doing open market type stuff you should do with extra money, not with your main retirement savings IMO.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The easy thing for a 401K is to just put in in some very diversified mutual fund. I'm lazy, busy and not that money focused so I just went with one of the target year funds where you pick your retirement year and the fund rebalances quarterly with being very aggressive now and getting more and more conservative as you get closer to retirement.

In any case being more risky, doing open market type stuff you should do with extra money, not with your main retirement savings IMO.[/QUOTE]

Open market stuff shouldn't be done with any of your own money until you have years of expertise such as BillyBob.

EDIT: Knoell, did you catch my earlier post where I asked you to point out what was wrong with the first paragraph of mykevermin's linked article?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Open market stuff shouldn't be done with any of your own money until you have years of expertise such as BillyBob.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But I can see playing around with it if you're:

1. Young
2. Have some disposable income (after maxing out your 401k etc.)
3. Have 6 months expenses in savings
4. Have no debts you could be paying down

It's something I'll never do as I just don't have the interest/drive to learn that much about investing. But I think it's fine for people to play around with given the above. Not very many people are in that situation though. I only fit 1 and 2, so any "disposable" income I have goes mostly into savings and paying down my car loan and student loans.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']There would be a better return learning how to count cards.[/QUOTE]

im going to vegas on thursday. if you want to paypal me some money i have an investment opportunity for you.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']im going to vegas on thursday. if you want to paypal me some money i have an investment opportunity for you.[/QUOTE]

I'm listening. What are you offering?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'm listening. What are you offering?[/QUOTE]

transfer 500, ill play blackjack using whichever betting table you want. all i ask is i can keep the free cocktails and beers.

or, ill put it all on one number in roulette.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']transfer 500, ill play blackjack using whichever betting table you want. all i ask is i can keep the free cocktails and beers.

or, ill put it all on one number in roulette.[/QUOTE]

Definitely no on one shot of roulette.

I can get you a few thousand for blackjack. What are your odds of making any sort of return?
 
I like how Republicans think that when our democratic process plays out not in their favor, we can start impeaching and firing and generally being big fat crybabies about everything.

The Aggies of Texas A&M have this phrase about how "we never lose, we're just behind when the game ends." Nice to see such childish foot stamping mentality can't be outgrown by manchildren who can't conceive of the idea that we just got over eight years of putting up with their dickswaggering bullshit.
 
[quote name='Strell']I like how Republicans think that when our democratic process plays out not in their favor, we can start impeaching and firing and generally being big fat crybabies about everything.

The Aggies of Texas A&M have this phrase about how "we never lose, we're just behind when the game ends." Nice to see such childish foot stamping mentality can't be outgrown by manchildren who can't conceive of the idea that we just got over eight years of putting up with their dickswaggering bullshit.[/QUOTE]
makes me think of the office.
"Andy Bernard does not lose contests. He wins them...or he quits them, becuase they are unfair"
 
[quote name='Strell']I like how Republicans think that when our democratic process plays out not in their favor, we can start impeaching and firing and generally being big fat crybabies about everything.

The Aggies of Texas A&M have this phrase about how "we never lose, we're just behind when the game ends." Nice to see such childish foot stamping mentality can't be outgrown by manchildren who can't conceive of the idea that we just got over eight years of putting up with their dickswaggering bullshit.[/QUOTE]

kind of like democrats wanted to impeach Bush? or fire karl rove? both parties do it, quit being so lopsided, I love how when you think your side is right, then it isnt just stamping your foot and crying.
 
Knoell, the things that Bush and Rove should have gotten in trouble for were things that actually happened.

Cons want to impeach Obama over what? His birth certificate?

Being the anti-christ?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Open market stuff shouldn't be done with any of your own money until you have years of expertise such as BillyBob.

EDIT: Knoell, did you catch my earlier post where I asked you to point out what was wrong with the first paragraph of mykevermin's linked article?[/QUOTE]

The blame goes all around for the collapse of the economy,Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Clinton, Bush, Banks, and citizens. All I am saying is that everyone blames Bush, and the "evil" banks, when in all actuality it was the irresponsibility of everyone that this happened.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Knoell, the things that Bush and Rove should have gotten in trouble for were things that actually happened.

Cons want to impeach Obama over what? His birth certificate?

Being the anti-christ?[/QUOTE]
what did they get into trouble for again? Remember wheres the evidence kiddo

edit: and dont spew bias left-winged articles please
 
[quote name='Knoell']The blame goes all around for the collapse of the economy,Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Clinton, Bush, Banks, and citizens. All I am saying is that everyone blames Bush, and the "evil" banks, when in all actuality it was the irresponsibility of everyone that this happened.[/QUOTE]

That sounds great. Prove it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That sounds great. Prove it.[/QUOTE]

Well community organizations pressured banks to hand out loans to low-income minorites. They even sued CitiBank for these reasons.

http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=121835

I realize that this is a forum, and I only read the first post so I don't necessarily agree with whatever the people said under it, but I think the first post offers compelling evidence that this really was a case of everyone's fault for being irresponsible. Also community orgainizations like ACORN are dependent on government funding, so yes it was Clintons fault that this group ran around sueing banks for discriminating against low-income minorites, and bullied them into giving loans. Now the bank may have had profit in their eyes in some cases, but it is still everyones fault.
People for taking the loans.
Banks for giving the loans.
Clinton for funding these organizations.
Bush for deregulating. (I still don't believe we need total government regulation though)

People bought houses they could not afford. You have to admit that alot of these individuals screwed up just like the banks.
 
I am probably not the first person to point this out to you in your life knoell and I won't be the last, but you should try harder.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am probably not the first person to point this out to you in your life knoell and I won't be the last, but you should try harder.[/QUOTE]

Nope, even if I had indisputable evidence, you guys wouldn't acknowledge that more people than the "evil corporations" and Bush were at fault. You cannot even acknowledge that homeowners have a slight responsibility because they signed the papers that said THEY are borrowing THIS money. You guys are so far gone not much will bring you back.

Also I am still waiting for the proof that Bush did something that is worth impeachment, besides what YOU believe he did. You seemed to try to sidestep that for some reason, and go right for the insult...
 
[quote name='Strell']Torture must not be a war crime any more.

Except to the rest of the world and half of the United States.[/QUOTE]

Waterboarding? That is a pretty lame form of torture to be complaining about. Especially since we put our own soldiers through it in survival training, but we wouldn't want those poor poor terroists to get a boo boo would we? I can just imagine what our enemies would do to us for a bit of information.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Waterboarding? That is a pretty lame form of torture to be complaining about. [/quote]

It's so lame, no one who calls it lame will do it. But that's because you guys think it's a spin in the kiddy pool instead of having water shoved inside like the new guy in a prison.

Especially since we put our own soldiers through it in survival training
Click to expand...

Hahahahahhaa. Nope.

but we wouldn't want those poor poor terroists to get a boo boo would we?
Click to expand...

Torture gives no credible data, makes us just as bad as the terrorists, and is an affront to freedom. Take your pick on whichever one of those suits your pea sized brain.

I can just imagine what our enemies would do to us for a bit of information.
Click to expand...

Wow, look out for that slippery slope.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Waterboarding? That is a pretty lame form of torture to be complaining about.[/QUOTE]

I doubt you would last 30 seconds.
 
[quote name='Strell']It's so lame, no one who calls it lame will do it.

Nope.

Torture gives no credible data, makes us just as bad as the terrorists, and is an affront to freedom. Take your pick on whichever one of those suits your pea sized brain.



Wow, look out for that slippery slope.[/QUOTE]

No our soldiers don't go through it? I guess you could say it is more controlled with our soldiers, but what training isn't? (I love how I have to fill in your arguement for you there.)

Simulating drowning makes us just as bad as terrorists? SIMULATING drowning?
The one terrorist had it done 47 times I believe, and he seems to be doing pretty ok. Not to mention that waterboarding was considered torture by law in 2005, not before then.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I doubt you would last 30 seconds.[/QUOTE]

No more responses for you until you justify your unproven statement.
 
[quote name='Knoell']No our soldiers don't go through it? [/quote]

No, they don't. You are suggesting that what we do to enemy combatants, we do to our own soldiers. That doesn't add up, since there's no way to emotional balance would be equal in each situation. It's like how you drive like a dick when someone pisses you off - things you can't control as a human. You know, unless you're Superman, which none of us are.

Sorry you're wrong.

Simulating drowning makes us just as bad as terrorists? SIMULATING drowning?
Click to expand...

C'mon, big man. Go get it done.

The one terrorist had it done 47 times I believe, and he seems to be doing pretty ok.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you've asked him directly then.

Not to mention that waterboarding was considered torture by law in 2005, not before then.
Click to expand...

The last president - Cheney - hired lawyers to deceptively cover up their torture. Then we had that wonderful discussion about what torture really is.

Remember when Clinton asked what the definition of "is" was? We all laughed. But at least he was just shootin' little Bills all over a willing skank, instead of pretending someone could magically breathe underwater.
 
Ok one they don't do it to "train" soldiers like it is fucking basic or akin to the haircut given new recruits.

It is done through the SERE program and select members of the Armed Forces and the only way it can be considered "training" is it that it trains you to gain an understanding of what torture is and that there really will be no resistance.

Protip: It isn't actually "simulated" drowning as water actually enters your lungs, it is drowning.

Mr. Nine-Dollars-An-Hour wouldn't last 30 seconds.
 
It's really fun watching you guys interact with the new person who does a shitty job of defending himself. Entertaining as hell, keep up the good work.
 
I hate to go back to a couple pages ago but Knoell said something I want to respond to. You were complaining that New York was so stupid because they're cutting school budgets instead of entitlements.

My question is: Do you think that's a liberal state problem only or were you just being funny?

My point is that many conservatives laugh and point fingers at NY and CA while deriding them as liberal entitlement states. If you look, many states (of all persauasions) are cuttting left and right. Indiana is cutting school budgets while Illinois is cutting a third of it's state police. Can you tell which state is liberal or conservative by which cuts they make?
 
You can "tell" whether a state is liberal or conservative based on history and geography.

Northeast = Liberal
North (IL, WI, MN) = Liberal
South = Conservative
Midwest (The "Heartland") = Conservative

Just examples
 
[quote name='depascal22']I hate to go back to a couple pages ago but Knoell said something I want to respond to. You were complaining that New York was so stupid because they're cutting school budgets instead of entitlements.

My question is: Do you think that's a liberal state problem only or were you just being funny?

My point is that many conservatives laugh and point fingers at NY and CA while deriding them as liberal entitlement states. If you look, many states (of all persauasions) are cuttting left and right. Indiana is cutting school budgets while Illinois is cutting a third of it's state police. Can you tell which state is liberal or conservative by which cuts they make?[/QUOTE]

http://projects.propublica.org/unemployment/

You can clearly see that the liberal state of Texas is hurting while the conservative havens of Oregon and Washington are doing just fine.
 
[quote name='Knoell']People bought houses they could not afford. You have to admit that alot of these individuals screwed up just like the banks.[/QUOTE]
You're not taking into account that the banks were being ultra-predatory. We can bullshit in hindsight, but the banks were making money both ways. If the person pays the note, they win. If the person didn't pay the note, the value of the house had skyrocketed and they win. Shit, I heard finance friends talk about how they ultimately made more money when the people defaulted (they carried their own paper).

I've seen the griping about the poors having the audacity to sue the banks (OMG ACORN), but I've never seen anyone try to attribute an actual percentage of loans that went out that otherwise wouldn't have. Why?

Because it's a fucking lie.

If it were statistically significant enough to cause banks to take on unhealthy amounts of risk (ha!), they would have brought their lobbyists down like the fist of an angry god. And with an only too willing to help Fed (lolwut froth?), well, you don't need a business degree to realize that shit smells like shit. We're supposed to believe that banks and financial institutions which have been running over the consumer in every measurable way for a decade, suddenly dropped on its back with its knees to the sky to get raped by, of all things on this earth, the poors.

Yea. Mmmk.

Or better yet, look for examples of countries with less damage taken and ask why. Canada took far less damage and their banks were leveraged out at 12-18 to 1. Our banks were leveraged what, 30, 40, 50 to 1? That happened because of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. You're right it was Clinton's fault. Free market retard that he is, he thought the financial sector would invisible hand itself in line. That makes Socialist Teddy Roosevelt laugh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Conservative States hate the fact that every citizen is going to get some form of affordable health care, maybe they should consider secession... It worked so many other countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top