Who do you think should win the Republican nomination?

[Abrupt]

Ford DID take a bailout. They secured a 9 billion dollar line of credit form the government and took a 5.907 Billion dollar loan from the department of energy.

Show this bailout you are speaking of.  Yes they did request a line of credit, but that is a common thing in business for companies to do and hardly a bailout to avoid bankruptcy.  Yes the took advantage of the DoE loan to upgrade manufacturing to the fuel standards the DoE was encouraging (the entire purpose of the DoE loan progarm).  This again was not a bailout to avoid bankruptcy but instead a program by the DoE to speed up compliance with their future fuel standards.

Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments

What is your point here as many presidents have mad recess appointments and they are allowed to (to a degree, but honestly I feel that many of them have abused the intentions of recess appointments).  Considering the discussion was about a NON recess appointment which is a direct violation of the authority granted by The Constitution, the matters of recess appointments are entirely irrelevant.  This is not a minor difference, this is a major violation of law that occurred.

[sigmapi1501]

You asked what my "point" was about the 243 (more than Obama) recess appointments made by Regan was?  Ummm you said he NEVER made one. He made 242 more than one.

[sigmapi1501]

This was your direct quote about Regan and recess appointments:

"Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, much less the 51 you are lying about above.  Personally I am in shock that no matter how much you might admire someone you would still actively advocate a dictatorship over our Republic.  I know that I wouldn't care if it was my favorite person in the world as president, if they go against the constitution I will be adamantly against that position.  I will bend my knee to no man."



He made 243 of them.  Spin that.

[alina6]

Chris Christie

[Abrupt]

This was your direct quote about Regan and recess appointments:

"Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, much less the 51 you are lying about above.  Personally I am in shock that no matter how much you might admire someone you would still actively advocate a dictatorship over our Republic.  I know that I wouldn't care if it was my favorite person in the world as president, if they go against the constitution I will be adamantly against that position.  I will bend my knee to no man."



He made 243 of them.  Spin that.

I will say this again to see if your reading comprehension has improved.  Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment and you saying that he made 243 is a lie (unless you are so limited in intellect that you cannot tell a "recess" appointment from a "non-recess" appointment.  You don't seem to understand what the difference is here and honestly if you don't then you have no business discussing the matter (except to ask one of us to explain to you the difference).  I mean that should show you how uniformed or brainwashed you are that you continue to mention this and yet you still do not understand the simplest difference between the two.

[sigmapi1501]

"Brainwashed"?  You actually believe the republican party cares about you. How is that for brainwashed? They will destroy you and the entire middle class.  Lords and serfs.  That's how their model would work if completely implemented.  But maybe it's your racism or homophobia or bible thumping that keeps you form seeing that.

[Abrupt]

"Brainwashed"?  You actually believe the republican party cares about you. How is that for brainwashed? They will destroy you and the entire middle class.  Lords and serfs.  That's how their model would work if completely implemented.  But maybe it's your racism or homophobia or bible thumping that keeps you form seeing that.

I don't trust any of them, although there are a few individuals amongst each party that seem better than the bulk of them all.  We don't have a class based system in America so there is nothing to affect in that regard.  I am not a racist or homophobic, so I wonder if you are projecting your prejudices upon me (if only you knew some of my friends you would understand how ridiculous your accusations are).  My religious teachings instruct me not to judge people, so it could never approve of the prejudices you propose.  I consider people purely by their actions, although sometimes I will include their intentions as well.  Where do you get this idea that I am racist or prejudice or is this just a natural tendency to label people in such a manner in an attempt to shut them down?  It will not work against me, regardless.

[sigmapi1501]

I don't trust any of them, although there are a few individuals amongst each party that seem better than the bulk of them all.  We don't have a class based system in America so there is nothing to affect in that regard.

Can't really argue against that. It's more of a sensible centrists statement. 

[jaymz462]

If you vote for Romney, you're voting for a soulless android.  If you're voting for a soulless android, you might as well write "Lt. Commander Data" in on your ballot.  He has as much chance of beating Obama as Romney does, and his positronic brain is far superior.

Or heck, just write in "Lore."  At least he wasn't shy about being evil.

[Falconer02]

If you're voting for a soulless android, you might as well write "Lt. Commander Data" in on your ballot.

Give me Data over Romney any day. Atleast he can make educated decisions rather than just talking about how many kids he has, how much he irrationally despises gay rights, or how much he puts an emphasis on wanting creationism in science classes. It really depresses me that these out-of-date theocratic ideas are still heavily presented in our political system. If a political candidate seriously can't use just a little common sense in figuring out why it's problematic to still push these out-of-date ideals, then they shouldn't be up their on the podium trying to grab one of the most powerful seats in the world. It's like they're either really that authentically stupid or they're deceitfully grabbing the votes of the lowest common denominators.



Don't let our country turn into santorum! VOTE LT. COMMANDER DATA STARDATE 2012!!!

[Joeyramone]

"Brainwashed"?  You actually believe the republican party cares about you. How is that for brainwashed? They will destroy you and the entire middle class.  Lords and serfs.  That's how their model would work if completely implemented.  But maybe it's your racism or homophobia or bible thumping that keeps you form seeing that.

Typical leftist. Call someone names who does not believe in your political ideas.  Sickening.  Reported to moderators.

[Falconer02]

Typical leftist. Call someone names who does not believe in your political ideas.  Sickening.  Reported to moderators.

This is debate and discuss. It says "Enter at your own risk!" for a reason. And considering many of the republican candidates have displayed homophobic and bible thumping tendencies, I think Sigi was just making an overgeneralization-- just like you did with the quote above.

[Abrupt]

If you're voting for a soulless android, you might as well write "Lt. Commander Data" in on your ballot.

Give me Data over Romney any day. Atleast he can make educated decisions rather than just talking about how many kids he has, how much he irrationally despises gay rights, or how much he puts an emphasis on wanting creationism in science classes. It really depresses me that these out-of-date theocratic ideas are still heavily presented in our political system. If a political candidate seriously can't use just a little common sense in figuring out why it's problematic to still push these out-of-date ideals, then they shouldn't be up their on the podium trying to grab one of the most powerful seats in the world. It's like they're either really that authentically stupid or they're deceitfully grabbing the votes of the lowest common denominators.



Don't let our country turn into santorum! VOTE LT. COMMANDER DATA STARDATE 2012!!!

Did you just suggest an attribute of "common sense" to politics (if even qualified by "a little")?

[Flackle]

Flackle... when your kid needs to go to the doctor and you can't afford it, THEN you can tell me healthcare isn't a basic need.

You can't give me a specific condition and call it a basic need. To me, at least, a basic need is someone every single human being on the planet needs on a frequent basis. I am in constant use of oxygen, I frequently drink water, I live in my house daily (can be applied to any sort of shelter), I eat every day, and so does all other over 6 billion people living on the planet (to say otherwise means they are not alive, or will not be for very long.) I myself, as millions of other people, have not gone to the doctor today. In fact, I haven't been to the doctor since I was a kid, and that was only because I had to get a booster shot. I've gotten sick, like everyone,  but not everyone who gets sick has to go to the doctor. I am sorry your child couldn't get healthcare when he needed it, just like I am sorry that those who die as a result of flooding can't afford a helicopter. Helicopters are not basic needs, but they are a result of human scientific advancement and may be very much required to continue existing as we do. Just like healthcare is not a basic need, it is a result of human scientific advancement and may be very much required to continue existing as we do.

You could argue that the food we get is a result of human scientific advancement, but I could also argue that the reason food is a basic need is because we always required it to survive (even before our species existed, other forms of life required food). Same applies to water and shelter. Even clothing (since other animals have fur to protect them from cold.)

The point that I am making is that we need to DEFINE what is or isn't a BASIC need, because while I agree that we need food, halthcare, helicopters, and pencils they are not all BASIC needs. If consider every need as basic, then how can you define basic when there are no just regular needs?

Above all else, I don't believe the government's job is to provide us with our basic needs for survival. The government is a result of a society that has gone well past its ability to provide for its basic needs, and we should continue to rely on ourselves to provide for those needs. The governments job is purely social, it is there to protect our basic human rights, to establish a rule of law that punishes those who would impose on others by means of force (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). You could argue that pursuit of happiness includes getting free healthcare, I could argue that obtaining happiness itself is getting healthcare, but the PURSUIT of happiness is trying what I can to obtain that happiness without harming others. The governments job is to insure that I am free to do what I can to obtain healthcare as long as I do so without harming others, its not the governments job to actually help me obtain that healthcare. Its the governments job to insure that doctors are free to do what they can to cure the ailments of those they choose without harming others. It isn't the governments job to tell the doctors who they can or cannot help.

[Falconer02]

Did you just suggest an attribute of "common sense" to politics (if even qualified by "a little")?

Point taken! lol

but not everyone who gets sick has to go to the doctor. I am sorry your child couldn't get healthcare when he needed it, just like I am sorry that those who die as a result of flooding can't afford a helicopter. Helicopters are not basic needs, but they are a result of human scientific advancement and may be very much required to continue existing as we do.

Exactly! Just like firefighting--oh wait...

If consider every need as basic, then how can you define basic when there are no just regular needs?

I would put healthcare over the usps, fire fighting, or local libraries as a basic need. I'm sure most people would too.