New Developments III

[criddic3]

The "no one will be denied" argument has yet to be settled. This will cost so much that many people feel that eventually there will be rationing of service, like there has been in other countries that provide government-sponsored health care. My problem is that the government has not done such a great job of managing programs like medicare (which is being gutted to pay for Obamacare), medicaid (which the Supreme Court ruled could not be used as a coercion tool for states to expand its funding) and social security (which will still go bankrupt, some estimate, in less that two decades.). So I am skeptical that they can manage something as massive as Obamacare, which aims to add everyone onto health care plans or be punished if they don't. Some people say that by having everyone (except the very poorest) pay will keep this afloat. Everyone paying into social security hasn't exactly worked that way. With a growing population, and incoming illegal population (admittedly less now with the current economy), I think it's wishful thinking that this can be sustained. Too many people will sign on thinking "wow I get free health care." I really don't see how the rest of the population can pay for themselves plus all these other people. Not while being promised no tax increases and more affordable care. Sounds like a fantasy to me. It's a noble idea. Definitely, we want everyone to have access to more affordable health care. "Access," but not this Robin Hood method that will cause rationing and will cost too much to sustain over time. I say this as someone who participates in some of the current government programs that are available. I'm not against government assistance for the poor or handicapped. I do think, though, that this new program is too unwieldy, too complex. It aims to do something it cannot, over time, hope to acheive. And it requires people to participate against their will or be punished. Obamacare does give the government too much power. The promises that gave birth to this law are not being kept. "You're taxes won't increase" they said. Yet the whole thing is essentially a tax. "If you like your plan, you can keep it," they claimed. Not gonna happen. You will have to choose a plan the government has put together for you. And they continue to promise that no one will ever be turned away. This is the biggest lie, because how can that be? There will be too many patients versus doctors; not enough money to pay for the major operations. There will be longer wait periods. There will be old people told to take a pill instead of get treatment. Smaller countries have seen this happen. Our country is one of the most populous on the planet. So the idea behind government health care sounds like a great thing, but I have serious doubts that it can work in a democracy that deliberately stayed away from having the government be so involved in people's lives. Another big problem is that we have no guarantee funding will go where it's supposed to go. So many government-run agencies and entitlements are underfunded because money is tranferred to other places. There has a be a better way; one that won't force people to do something against their will. One that will provide accesss but not at other peoples' expense. One that is worthy of a democratic society.

[OscarGuy]

I think that if the Pubes want to turn the argument towards health care and away from the economy, they are more than welcome to do so. This election will be decided on the economy, not health care. That same CNN poll says that they rank this Obamacare issue 6th on most important issues. That's pretty insignificant. As someone on a political poll site I read put it: all the dems have to do is trott out little kids, cancer patients and others who will now be able to get the care they need thanks to Obamacare because no one will be denied. In the end, this is going to be an issue like Medicare. If you start talking against medicare, you lose the senior vote. Not a wise idea.

[Big Magilla]

What, no comments for the most important SCOTUS decision since Bush V. Gore?
I'm surprised.

I'm holding my breath waiting to see how the Dems blow this one. Overnight polling has public opinion in a dead heat with 46% liking the deciison and 46% not liking it.

[taki15]

What, no comments for the most important SCOTUS decision since Bush V. Gore?
I'm surprised.

[Greg]

Mitt Romney just said that cutting government spending now, when the economy is as as weak as it is, would be detrimental and lead the U.S. into a recession or a depression. I wonder how the Tea Party will react to this.

[criddic3]

Criddic, believe it or not I'm very glad to see you're finally sticking up for yourself and letting a little anger show. You seem more human in my eyes for doing so. I'm willing to leave it at that.

If I'm a sheep, though, I'm one who criticizes Obama in my comments far more often than I support him, including in this particular discussion. I'd say the ratio is about 80-20.

I'm sorry I called you a sheep, but I was annoyed. Usually when I stick up for myself I go on tangents and wind up hurting my cause. I admit I do sometimes make myself look foolish when I argue. but it is not from a lack of sincerity. Also I did wonder if this post was to mock mine, but I'm willing to believe it for the sake of maintaining a friendly atmosphere. I'm sure there will be time for more "debating" as the election draws near.

[Sonic Youth]

Criddic, believe it or not I'm very glad to see you're finally sticking up for yourself and letting a little anger show. You seem more human in my eyes for doing so. I'm willing to leave it at that.

If I'm a sheep, though, I'm one who criticizes Obama in my comments far more often than I support him, including in this particular discussion. I'd say the ratio is about 80-20.

[criddic3]

Oh, one more thing. As I was re-reading the Post article, I was struck by the response given by Romney and his camp, that it was a "prank". I was struck by it, because I recalled criddic calling it one, and sure enough he said it several times. As we've seen for 10 years now, you're very good with your marching orders, you lemming. You could have called it a "joke", you could have called it "a minor incident", you could have called it "teasing". But if the political camp you support calls it a "prank", then you shut off the parts of your brain that controls independent thought, reprogram the wiring, and voila! "prank" is an essential word in your language as "baah" is to a sheep.

What allegedly happened wasn't a prank by the definition of the word "prank"! A prank is a trick played on someone with a set-up leading to it. What was the trick? What was the joke? What was the set-up that led to it? You are so easily brainwashed, that you allow other people to distort what you know to be the definition of the word "prank"... unless you didn't know what the word "prank" meant in the first place. Either way, you're severely intellectually compromised.

Actually I did call it an incident and I did say it was teasing, in addition to calling it a prank. Read the posts. You're sheep for the left, so I am not bothered by your name-calling. This has been the dyanmic for years. Most of the people on this board are committed to the left, while I am a right-of-center guy. It was this way in 2004 when Bush was running for re-election, when McCain was running against Obama and now in 2012. And there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that you inherently distrust everything I say because you want to believe I am just parroting. I can understand some of this, since some of what I say closely remembles what others say, but that is because the thinking is often similar. And yes, sometimes if I agree with something I will repeat it. You've done the same. Everyone on this board has done that from time to time, but when I do it you call it a crime. Echoing an opinion you agree with is not being a sheep. Making the opinion just because someone you like holds it, that's being a sheep. I have held the same opinions throughout my time here. On illegal immigration, on the war on terror, on abortion, on gay rights, on racism, etc. etc. I think you don't like it because I have not changed my political leanings. I am not far-right. I want a pathway for illegal immigrants, I believe that some government subsidies for needful people is warranted, and I believe in Civil Unions for gays (which includes me). I am a registered Republican since 1996. I voted for Hillary Clinton's re-election in 2006, I voted for Chuck Schumer in 2004. I am not a religious fanatic, although I pray to God every night. I dislike the church's stance on gays, because I think it misinterprets the Bible on that issue. But I contend I could be wrong, and I may be condemned for having slept with men. Anyway, I am who I've always been, on and off this board. I make this personal, because you made it personal. To you I am a liar and a puppet. OKay. I've said it before and I'll probably say it again: I'm not necessarily the smartest guy on the block, but I'm not an idiot. For you to acknowledge me civilly, I have to change who I am. I have to start agreeing with you. I'm not asking you to agree with me. We have conversations here on every conceivable topic. People disagree. You want to think I'm stupid or whatever, go ahead. It makes you feel superior, so good for you. I am going to continue to discuss things from my perspective regardless of your insults.

[Sonic Youth]

Oh, one more thing. As I was re-reading the Post article, I was struck by the response given by Romney and his camp, that it was a "prank". I was struck by it, because I recalled criddic calling it one, and sure enough he said it several times. As we've seen for 10 years now, you're very good with your marching orders, you lemming. You could have called it a "joke", you could have called it "a minor incident", you could have called it "teasing". But if the political camp you support calls it a "prank", then you shut off the parts of your brain that controls independent thought, reprogram the wiring, and voila! "prank" is an essential word in your language as "baah" is to a sheep.

What allegedly happened wasn't a prank by the definition of the word "prank"! A prank is a trick played on someone with a set-up leading to it. What was the trick? What was the joke? What was the set-up that led to it? You are so easily brainwashed, that you allow other people to distort what you know to be the definition of the word "prank"... unless you didn't know what the word "prank" meant in the first place. Either way, you're severely intellectually compromised.

[Sonic Youth]

Criddic's dense...but he's been that way for years, so no surprise.

If the incident were done outside of sight of teachers, which it was, and done to someone by a pack of guys or at least watched by a pack of guys, which it was, I can see why the kid didn't want to cause trouble. In these situations the oppressor usually threatens the target not to talk or else...and when you have that many guys in witness and the oppressor is someone of importance, word tends not to slip out...especially during the secretive '60s. I knew of all sorts of incidents in high school that never got reported. If you went to a school where that shit happened and people did get reprimanded for it all, then you were lucky enough to attend the best school on the planet.

I laughed at this. Of course some incidents occur outside the school or out of view of teachers and never go reported. But then you make the leap, suggesting that Romney threatened the guy "not to talk or else."

You don't even realise how much you offend everyone else's intelligence here.

You didn't say Romney did it, but you definitely implied this is what happened. Having been punched, kicked, pushed, etc. when I was a kid sometimes, I know this can happen. The difference is that you, and others, are making this into something a lot bigger than it probably was. The kid got his hair cut. Maybe he was shoved or teased. Okay, that's not right.
My other point about the Romney incident is that it does not sound like a life-threatening attack. It was a prank, a dumb and cruel one, but nonetheless a prank. They made fun of his hair and held him to cut it. Not nice, but it doesn't sound like they said "oooh, we'll come after you if you tell." You make it sound like a gang act. It's more like the scene in "This Boy's Life," when Leo calls the kid a "fag" and the kid fights back with his dog in tow. Kids tease. It was 50 years ago! If it wasn't an election year, this story would barely even be on your radar screen.

You say you were bullied throughout school, and don't have the brains to understand all the implications of bullying.

There's a species of alien in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" books that's easy to outwit because if you can't see it, it believes it can't see you. Criddic is a whole other kind of alien creature: a) he believes that if something didn't happen, there was no chance of it happening in the first place, and b) if he doesn't actively look for the details within a news story, then those details must not have been reported.

Starting with the latter: well, dude, you've already gotten your facts wrong several times, and the only way you could do that is to not read any of the actual stories as reported by the news agencies. That doesn't mean you have to believe them, but you at least have to address them before you act all skeptical. Otherwise, you expose yourself as not having a clue as to what you're talking about. You've already been chastised for saying there were no witnesses or participants interviewed to corroborate the story, when in actuality, there were FIVE witnesses/participants. This you have apologized for. Fair enough.

But then you say "The kid got his hair cut. Maybe he was shoved or teased. Okay, that's not right." Sadly, Criddic, you had not learned your lesson about being - in your words - "misinformed" yet speaking out about it. According to the Washington Post story: "they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.” Again, whether you believe it or not is your perogative. But had you actually READ THE STORY, you would not have said "maybe he was shoved or teased". Now that you know that the allegation is not that he was shoved and teased, but that he was ambushed and outnumbered by a gang of boys, knocked over, held against his will, and they would not stop what he was doing even though he was screaming and telling them to stop, would you still say "The kid got his hair cut. Maybe he was ambushed, cornered and outnumbered by a gang of boys, knocked over, held against his will, etc."? Because that's a far more serious allegation than just being shoved and teased.

In other words, don't try to make opinions anymore. Make INFORMED opinions.

As for "if something didn't happen, there was no chance of it happening in the first place", it's astonishing that you claim you were bullied in school (and I believe it), and you are supremely lacking in any insight towards the nuances or the psychology of bullying or being bullied. You don't have to be traumatised to understand the psychology; you just need a little bit of intelligence. You say things like "if he roughed up the guy, beat him to a pulp, I might be concerned." Well first of all, they DID rough him up. Knocking someone to the floor and pinning him down is roughing him up. They used physical violence on him. But if your definition of roughing someone up is drawing blood and bringing up welts... you don't know Romney wouldn't have done that if he had to. The VICTIM didn't know either. That's the thing about bullying, which everybody in the world with the exception of Criddic knows: it is the THREAT (whether spoken or unspoken) of violence that allows bullies to take advantage of others, and get away with it without anyone "tattling" on them. I mean, you yourself have been bullied, criddic. You know this already. Are you really going to pretend to forget this for the sake of political points? Did Romney really have to say "I'll beat you up if you tell anyone" for the kid to think he would be beaten up if he didn't tell anyone? Do you seriously believe Romney thought what he was doing was not a punishable action? Whether Romney said it or not, THAT'S THE IMPLIED THREAT whenever someone is knocked to the ground by a gang of boys. Claiming otherwise as you did is seriously delusional.

I've not addressed the "It happened 50 years ago" point because on that one you're right. It happened 50 years ago and it's not something to disqualify anyone for president in and of itself. It's how Romney responds to emerging allegations NOW, during the 2012 campaign, that should be taken into consideration. This was an excellent opportunity for him to make lemonade out of lemons. That's what leaders do. Obama is a master at this. His most profound utterances (including his admission that gays should have the right to marry a few days ago) seem to happen only when he's cornered into a situation and something has to give. Gingrich was also very good at this. But Romney doesn't have the ability.

[criddic3]

Criddic's dense...but he's been that way for years, so no surprise.

If the incident were done outside of sight of teachers, which it was, and done to someone by a pack of guys or at least watched by a pack of guys, which it was, I can see why the kid didn't want to cause trouble. In these situations the oppressor usually threatens the target not to talk or else...and when you have that many guys in witness and the oppressor is someone of importance, word tends not to slip out...especially during the secretive '60s. I knew of all sorts of incidents in high school that never got reported. If you went to a school where that shit happened and people did get reprimanded for it all, then you were lucky enough to attend the best school on the planet.

I laughed at this. Of course some incidents occur outside the school or out of view of teachers and never go reported. But then you make the leap, suggesting that Romney threatened the guy "not to talk or else." You didn't say Romney did it, but you definitely implied this is what happened. Having been punched, kicked, pushed, etc. when I was a kid sometimes, I know this can happen. The difference is that you, and others, are making this into something a lot bigger than it probably was. The kid got his hair cut. Maybe he was shoved or teased. Okay, that's not right. Today there are schools where people are bringing guns and knives. I've seen the videos of school incidents where there's a fight and a teacher is just standing there not doing anything. When I was in high school, in the mid-1990s, if there was a fight and teacher witnessed something going on, they did something. Case in point: a fellow student at my high school wanted to "fight" but I didn't put up much of a fight and he punched me a few times in front of the school, and the police were called. (I was smart about this in insisting we do this in front of the school, rather than in back like he wanted) Even when there was the hint of a fight brewing, a teacher or principal would break it up before it could happen on school grounds. Of course you can't have 24 -hour surveillance, but these types of things were done back then. My assumption was that if they did such things in 1995, they would have been even more disciplined and intolerant of violence in school in 1965. Maybe I'm wrong. My other point about the Romney incident is that it does not sound like a life-threatening attack. It was a prank, a dumb and cruel one, but nonetheless a prank. They made fun of his hair and held him to cut it. Not nice, but it doesn't sound like they said "oooh, we'll come after you if you tell." You make it sound like a gang act. It's more like the scene in "This Boy's Life," when Leo calls the kid a "fag" and the kid fights back with his dog in tow. Kids tease. It was 50 years ago! If it wasn't an election year, this story would barely even be on your radar screen.

[Sabin]

I just don't like this idea that Romney didn't know the kid was gay. If he didn't do this because the kid was gay, then he did it because this kid was an "Other" and "Others" are to be mocked.

The emergence of this story seems to have caused the family of the late victim quite a bit of distress. I'm not sure much good has come from it.

[OscarGuy]

Criddic's dense...but he's been that way for years, so no surprise.

If the incident were done outside of sight of teachers, which it was, and done to someone by a pack of guys or at least watched by a pack of guys, which it was, I can see why the kid didn't want to cause trouble. In these situations the oppressor usually threatens the target not to talk or else...and when you have that many guys in witness and the oppressor is someone of importance, word tends not to slip out...especially during the secretive '60s. I knew of all sorts of incidents in high school that never got reported. If you went to a school where that shit happened and people did get reprimanded for it all, then you were lucky enough to attend the best school on the planet.

[Sabin]

criddic3 wrote
There were times I was bullied as a kid. I was different, as a hearing impaired kid who liked sing all the time. And not contemporary, cool songs, but old Frank Sinatra songs. And before I was a teenager I did a lot of spontaneous dancing because I liked to watch Fred Astaire movies. So I know what it's like to be seen as "the weird kid." No one ever cut my hair, and I didn't act feminine even when I was dancing around (otherwise I might have had more serious bullies after me; mostly I got snickers), but nevertheless I am not defending bullying here.

No, but you make a very good point. If you don't want to get bullied, then don't act gay.

criddic3 wrote
But it is true, not an excuse, that years ago we didn't have all this hands-off stuff. I mean, today a teacher sees a fight they don't even try to break it up. When I was in high school the teachers did something about these things. So I can only imagine that if the incident was serious enough in 1965, someone would have been reprimanded. We're not talking about inner-city brawls here. Get over it.

It gets better.

[Sonic Youth]

I apologize if I had my facts wrong. I had heard that more than one person who had spoken of these events was not actually present. Maybe I was misinformed. But I still think more people will consider this a foolish act of a teenager rather than something that Romney would condone today. I also have to say that his lack of remembering the incident could mean he is telling the truth when he says he was not out to get target someone he perceived to be gay. The problem is that we just can't know what the circumstances were. There were times I was bullied as a kid. I was different, as a hearing impaired kid who liked sing all the time. And not contemporary, cool songs, but old Frank Sinatra songs. And before I was a teenager I did a lot of spontaneous dancing because I liked to watch Fred Astaire movies. So I know what it's like to be seen as "the weird kid." No one ever cut my hair, and I didn't act feminine even when I was dancing around (otherwise I might have had more serious bullies after me; mostly I got snickers), but nevertheless I am not defending bullying here. I just don't think Mitt Romney fifty years later is the same person, even if he did tease someone. Now if the story was that he roughed up the guy, beat him up to a pulp, I might be concerned. But it is true, not an excuse, that years ago we didn't have all this hands-off stuff. I mean, today a teacher sees a fight they don't even try to break it up. When I was in high school the teachers did something about these things. So I can only imagine that if the incident was serious enough in 1965, someone would have been reprimanded. We're not talking about inner-city brawls here. Get over it.

It's astonishing to behold. You sometimes seem to be on the edge of genuine insight, and then you retreat back to your talking points with no evidence that you're capable of understanding a damn thing beneath what appears on the surface.