3rdnlng Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 If Romney becomes President I would love to see him fire the department of education, and the EPA. Getting rid of the second would definitely be good for the economy. Getting rid of the first and then an orgasm.
IDBillzFan Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Having said that, the statement was taken totally out of context. Dave is fully aware of this. His role is not to contribute to a discussion, but rather deliver the latest liberal talking point in hopes of making certain people crazy. It's lazy, but it works for him.
Wisconsin Bills Fan Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I kind of like the idea that my children get to go to school and be educated so they can succeed in life. I also like clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. If you want to move the economy forward without getting rid of the EPA lets start to move to green energy. Your kids don't need the federal government involved in education to go to school and become successful. We also don't need the EPA to ensure we have clean air and water. I'm all for getting green energy going, but can we at least go full speed ahead on getting fossil fuels from home in the mean time?
B-Man Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 As others have already stated, this is an entirely overblown "controversy" Romney didn’t really say he enjoys firing people The full quote shows: “I want people to be able to own insurance if they wish to, and to buy it for themselves and perhaps keep it for the rest of their life, and to choose among different policies offered from companies across the nation. I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. “It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I’m going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me.” Romney was saying he likes to have the option of replacing his health insurance if he judges it to be sub par. .
Bigfatbillsfan Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Your kids don't need the federal government involved in education to go to school and become successful. We also don't need the EPA to ensure we have clean air and water. I'm all for getting green energy going, but can we at least go full speed ahead on getting fossil fuels from home in the mean time? That's a very fair trade. I'm all for drilling at home while switching to green energy. But the DoE and EPA aren't going anywhere.
Rob's House Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 That's a very fair trade. I'm all for drilling at home while switching to green energy. But the DoE and EPA aren't going anywhere. that's part of the problem. Does knowing there's a big federal bureaucracy with "education" and another with "environmental protection" in it's name give you some feeling of security?
UConn James Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) As I wrote in the consumer forum thread, tonight I cancelled my service with AT&T because by going with the local cable company's internet service, I'm getting ~5-6 times the speed at less than half the price. I liked having the option to "fire" people too! I should've done it a long time ago. Romney's quote had to do with competitive business practices that makes the US so great. If one company becomes out of touch with its consumers' needs, there is recourse for those consumers. They'll go where the better deal is and the people at the original company had better adapt and offer better services or they'll (justifiably) go out of business. These people are making a mountain out of a crater. Edited January 10, 2012 by UConn James
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Your kids don't need the federal government involved in education to go to school and become successful. We also don't need the EPA to ensure we have clean air and water. I'm all for getting green energy going, but can we at least go full speed ahead on getting fossil fuels from home in the mean time? The first one is true. The only reason it exists is to hand out money to liberal activists/researchers...who conveniently conclude that it needs more money. However, we do need a Federal organization that keeps people from NY from "pissing" into rivers that go into Pennsylvania. Now if that's ALL the organization did, it would make sense. The EPA needs to be restricted to cases that cross state lines, or in instances of extreme threat. Use the same rules as those for the FBI. Let the individual state EPAs handle individual property owner issues. This would make sense. Here's what doesn't make sense: The EPA keeping people from building homes on property they own, in an already residential area, because they say there are wetlands there , and then to make matters ridiculous, never mind worse, saying that the land owner has no right to sue them in Federal court, after they threaten to impose 30k fines, per day, on them? http://www.foxnews.c...stopped-by-epa/ This is retarded. Justice Elena Kagan questioned why the Sacketts didn't simply file for a wetlands permit. "Couldn't you have gotten the legal determination that you wanted through that process?" Yeah, in a pig's ass. As if you would get a fair hearing in a "court" where the EPA is judge, jury, and unregulated finer. That's one of the reasons why we have Federal courts, and courts in general, you twit. We don't live in a totalitarian state where the government cannot be held to account. Perhaps you need to get a copy of the Constitution and read it. Why do I have to explain something so basic to a supposed Supreme Court worthy lawyer? The EPA needs to gutted and the leadership needs to be retired. Clearly these people are out of control, and it's time to reorganize the department and redefine it's scope. Edited January 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
GG Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Second, yes firing people is a great way to help the economy. Depends on the kind of firing. If a company is insolvent and its sales are down, you may turn it around by reducing costs, which means layoffs. If you don't, the company will cease to exist and a lot more jobs will be lost. Nobody is guaranteed a job for life and companies aren't guaranteed to survive forever. Third, class warfare is a load of ****. Is that why the POTUS is banking his reelection on it?
UConn James Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) For people who have no clue what Romney did at Bain, perhaps you ought to read this before you make an ass of yourself. (I realize I'm writing too late for a good many here on PPP.) Romney’s got the upper hand on the Bain story The same critics who have been on the prowl for a not-Romney candidate since the start of the campaign were in full sneer yesterday when he said, “There were a couple of times I wondered if I was going to get a pink slip.” Hrrumph, they said. He’s always been a corporate tycoon. Well, that in turn sent me looking for some information on his early career. ... So let’s review. [Romney] entered the workforce in the dregs of the pre-Reagan recovery era. Unemployment wasn’t as high as it has been under the Obama years, but the economy was in poor shape. He was not guaranteed success and, indeed, both Bain itself and the companies in which it invested (and Bain executives like Romney helped run) were not insulated from failure. More on that in a moment.) One can understand the anti-capitalist left sneering that a guy who eventually did very well could never have experienced any job anxiety, but it’s distasteful coming from the right, which is supposed to eschew class antagonism. The other point that is apparent in the Atlantic account is that Newt Gingrich’s “looting” vision of Bain is simply uninformed (or if you prefer, maliciously distorted). As Atlantic (hardly a bastion of free market robber-baronism pointed out) reports, Bain was in the business of fixing the companies, not “flipping” them as Gingrich claims. Does Gingrich even understand what these companies do? Edited January 10, 2012 by UConn James
/dev/null Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 That's a very fair trade. I'm all for drilling at home while switching to green energy. But the DoE and EPA aren't going anywhere. In the Middle Ages one could not attain salvation or go to heaven without the benevolence of The Church In modern time, we can not have education without the Dept of Education. We can't have clean air or water without the EPA. Children will starve without their EBT. Old People will die without Social Security The US Federal Gov't is the modern equivalent to the Midieval Catholic Church All Glory to the Benevolence of the Federal Government
Adam Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Your kids don't need the federal government involved in education to go to school and become successful. We also don't need the EPA to ensure we have clean air and water. I'm all for getting green energy going, but can we at least go full speed ahead on getting fossil fuels from home in the mean time? Are you for restricting use of found fossil fuels to use in the US? Can that even be done?
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) In the Middle Ages one could not attain salvation or go to heaven without the benevolence of The Church In modern time, we can not have education without the Dept of Education. We can't have clean air or water without the EPA. Children will starve without their EBT. Old People will die without Social Security The US Federal Gov't is the modern equivalent to the Midieval Catholic Church All Glory to the Benevolence of the Federal Government HAHAHA Hysterical. Funny because it's true That would be a great commercial. Kinda like the old Apple vs. IBM commercial. Edited January 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 The US Federal Gov't is the modern equivalent to the Midieval Catholic Church Right down to the payment of indulgences.
OCinBuffalo Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Right down to the payment of indulgences. Yes, complete with the IRS/EPA Inquisition, the cries of heresy every time the words "reform entitlements" are uttered, the shameless acquisition of land, the Borgia-like corruption, the use of the military for personal gain. It goes on and on. Actually, I bet between us and hypnofrog, we could sell this concept to Karl Rove's PAC. It would make a hell of an ad.
Jauronimo Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Right down to the payment of indulgences. Obama has been called a lot of things over the past three years, but I think its a safe bet that this is the first time he has been compared to Tetzel.
Dante Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) I don't know why here in California we need a federal education department. We already have the California Department Of Education. I assume all other states have this as well. Edited January 11, 2012 by Dante
Adam Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Yes, complete with the IRS/EPA Inquisition, the cries of heresy every time the words "reform entitlements" are uttered, the shameless acquisition of land, the Borgia-like corruption, the use of the military for personal gain. It goes on and on. Actually, I bet between us and hypnofrog, we could sell this concept to Karl Rove's PAC. It would make a hell of an ad. Hypnofrog? Whatever you just had, I'll take 10
/dev/null Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Hypnofrog? Whatever you just had, I'll take 10 I believe he was referring to me
Adam Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I believe he was referring to me Are you sure- that is a toad in your avatar
Recommended Posts