Magox

You didn't answer the question. For that matter, you barely addressed any of the points I brought up. such as: Secondly, how do you justify that a vast expansion of Medicaid is not an entitlement? To my third point, Even if we were to accept your argument that the Public Option would of brought on more competition, that still doesn't answer address these flaws: Also the public option was riddled with faults. How in the world is a private insurer who has limited pockets going to compete with the Federal Government who basically has unlimited funds at their disposal? You don't think that if they lowered rates that it would put private insurers out of business? And if rates are artificially lowered by the government, that means quality of care would go down, simply because there aren't enough doctors who will take on even scheduled Medicare rates, which is what their goal would of been. Or, if they didn't artificially lower rates, their would of been an explosion in the overall costs to the federal budget because of the massive infusion of clients shifting from Private insurers to the public option. I can go on for hours regarding this topic, why don't we start off with the point I brought up, and we'll go from there. You also never addressed this point: Let's see how serious you are about have a real discussion.

Which serious politician is looking to "mercilessly slash the programs" ? And can you outline or at least give an example of how they are proposing to do this? And a vast expansion of Medicaid is an entitlement. To say otherwise is absurd. Reasonable people can argue in what we can do to increase life expectancy and coverage, but that doesn't automatically mean that the ACA was a good piece of legislation, simply because action was taken. Well before you got here I spoke at length of the pitfalls of ACA, and there are many, ranging from taxes, to national debt implications, busting state budgets, small business activity, quality of health care deterioration and consumer behavior patterns which will lead to even higher premiums. Soon enough we'll find out. Also, when you mention life expectancy and "entitlements' health care, you imply that there is a direct connection. Correlation does not imply causation. It's a false equivalence. If you truly want to know why we have a shorter life expectancy than some other developed nations, it's for one major reason, gluttonous consumer behavior. We are a country of fat asses, and until that changes, you won't see those numbers change much.

It's pretty obvious, Obama won and he feels empowered. There is no hiding who he truly is now, he's an unabashed liberal who cares more about from his view, dealing with social inequities through implementing bigger government policies while instituting punitive measures amongst those who feels owe it back to society, than trying to restore a vibrant economy. If anyone saw his inaugural address, knows that his agenda is the antithesis of Clinton's second term, when he decreed "The era of big government is over"... Well, Obama basically said "The era of big government is back, and we've juiced it up". So of course, it wasn't surprising to me that he never made mention of the economy and debt, why would he? Those are his failures, not to mention that liberals don't really enjoy discussing the debt. Rather than discuss these topics, that most of us care about, he is going to try to push through his leftist agenda. He's a borderline megalomaniac, it's gonna be his way or the highway, and he has the election results to prove it. At least that's how he sees it. The only hope I have of there being a grand bargain is if he comes to his senses and decides that addressing the entitlements and tax reform is part of the legacy he wants to leave behind. My guess is that he won't deliver, first because he isn't equipped to come through on a grand bargain, simply because he isn't able to connect with the opposing party. Secondly, liberals don't want to touch the entitlements, and he has always been beholden to their beliefs. The only reason why he ever pissed off liberals with some of his "compromises" is because he had to. If there is anything he loves more than his liberal orthodoxy, it would be himself. Which means that he compromised not for the sake of the good, but for his legacy and his re election. Well now that he has been re elected, I expect to see an even greater movement to the left.

It all starts and ends at the top.

Dude, he's trolling... Leave him him be so he can masturbate to his Manti Teo posters on his door.

Holy ****! You are me! I talk about incentives and the government all the time. If you continue to pile up the incentives for doing less, you will get a less productive society. If you apply punitive measures (higher taxes on the wealthy), not for tangible results but in the name of economic "fairness", then you will get less production. Make no mistake, Obama cares more about social justice than having a vibrant economy. Remember the Hillary/Obama debates?

I'm not surprised

Shallow much?

"I'd like to get me some of that chunky piece of ass, oh ****, Hillary is lookin again"

Get use to it.... Obama right now believes he's untouchable, and with that feeling of invincibility it's only natural that his followers will have the same level of arrogance.

Right on cue

In other words, he believes Fitz sucks major balls.

Well, he isn't afraid to say what he believes. But he's not your kinda dude, you're pretty close to being a full blown socialist, he's on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Dude, the guy is a staunch conservative, just because he believes in Global Warming doesn't mean he's some sort of Moderate R. He believes in balancing the budget through spending cuts. He believes in cutting taxes. He believes that Private insurers are better for the U.S than State run health care. He believes in smarter and less regulation. And he's pro Life to boot. Please, you would never in your life time even come close to considering him as someone you would vote for.

Ray Lewis does it, Ok Tebow does it, Bad

I still don't get how this ad was false. Someone please help me out here.

For me it's simple, if others are doing it to get an edge and you are directly competing against them, then I don't have a problem with it, but if you get caught, that's the risk you took and you deserve the consequences.

I don't fault him for "cheating", the whole cycling world was doping, and if you want to fall in the world of irrelevance, then you can stay clean and not be competitive. If you are fiercely competitive and you want to be relevant, then you even the playing field. From my perspective, where he loses major points is how he treated people in order to protect his legacy. In a nutshell, that's my views on this matter

I don't care if he lied, he's a 22 year old...

Out of curiosity, what similarities do you see from Andy Dalton and Nassib? Where did you come up with this comparison?

I seem to remember reading a thread where DC TOM and Simon got into a tiff about how he was temporarily banned and made mention of how he planned on visiting the site less.

He's 22 years old, 22 year olds do stupid and unexplainable things at time.. I'm certainly not gonna brand the kid for the rest of his life because he did something stupid.

That's the main cog of the liberal plank. Gotta hand it to B.O, he's mastered it.

Very solid pickup

It's not that they lie, it's that the variables they use don't depict an accurate picture.