(Portsmouth Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
83,625 messages
Updated 5/17/2024 10:13:59 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Portsmouth Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
MartiniMan
- 
|
|
Subject:
|
Thoughts on your points
|
|
Date:
|
6/28/2009 7:04:34 PM
|
|
"MM look at the demographics! WW, I am concerned about much of what Obama is doing and even more so with Congress. That is the reason I don't want the GOP to commit slow suicide as it is now doing."
I am well aware of the demographics but you still haven't explained to me how alienating the most reliable 75% of your base is the key to electoral success? What is your evidence for that? I have pointed out several times that the GOP enjoyed electoral success when it did the opposite of what you are suggesting. I just don't see the connection but I am going to buy his book and read it and see if I can understand.
"I am not in favor of the current direction of healthcare reform but do know something must be done. My favored plan would mandate every American have insurance with some federal help possibly in the form of a gov't option for those who couldn't afford coverage. Insurance Co's should be required to insure all without regard to pre-existing conditions, providers would be required to accept all comers, and the centerpiece, every American would be responsible for their insurance, employers would not allowed to provide coverage and would be required to rebate a percentage (?75%) of the savings to the employee as a salary increase (talk about competition!). Without a viable Republican party any reasonable plan is impossible."
What did you think you were going to get when you voted for Obama? Honestly, you and others like Hound were warned and now you tell us we need to be viable to provide the loyal opposition to this craziness? I can tell you if they go to a government plan that I know I am going to be paying for in the form of much higher taxes I am going to drop our employer-provided insurance, especially when they tax it. As for a rebate of the savings from employers, what you are suggesting is a pay increase because we no longer pay our portion of the premium. Well I am going to be paying for their "free" health insurance in the form of confiscatory taxes and then I have to give them a raise to boot? Not likely. I don't have the answer to health care costs and insurance except to say that until the consumer understands and bears the cost of health and we get rid of third parties (insurance companies or the government) for all but catastrophic care nothing will change. Government health care is a disaster in Canada and England and everywhere else, but its coming here because of you other so-called moderates votes....not mine.
"I'm for an court system that is completely without partianship. Judges for all major Federal courts should be selected by lot from a pool of 10 senate pre-approved candidates. The initial pool should be selected by a non-partisan committee selected jointly be the Supreme Court, Congress and the President. After that the appointments would be made by the President with Senate approval.
After the initial sellections no appointee could be raised to the court until they had been in the pool for at least one year. Such a system would make for more centrist (less activist!!!!) judges completely removed fron direct political influence. Constitutional admendment required."
The issue isn't partisanship (D versus R), it is being a strict constructionist and not legislating from the bench. I like your desired outcome but I don't really understand how your approach would get there. How do you remove a political bias from a lawyer? Every one that I know and work with has a world view that informs their judicial approach. I would really like to understand how it would work the way you hope because if we could get there by your approach I would be all for it. I am sick of a few unelected tyrants negating the will of the people.
"I do not like the energy bill now working its way through the Congress. I do know we MUST cut our use of oil (foreign or domestic) and we MUST cut emissions (just this minute heard Lindsay Graham say "global warming is real" on MTP). How do we do it. Taxes! I can hear you screaming from here. All fossil fuels whether used an individual or business including utilities should be much more heavly taxed. The tax rate should gradually increase if use did not go down. Gas guzzler sales should not be restricted but should be taxed at purchase. Very fuel efficient cars should be given a tax credit at sale. Tax income should be used to develope alternative energy sources including nuclear."
Archie: the relationship between man-made carbon emissions and global temperatures is not a settled issue and I don't care what a moron like Lindsey Graham or McCain or any other mind numbed politician says. They are just plain wrong and I can tell you this is an area which I have a lot of expertise. This whole issue will one day be shown to have been the greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind and Algore will be seen as a charlatan. Taxes are not the answer and I will tell you why. A recent study in Spain (where they have a very advanced cap and trade system, high carbon taxes, etc.) showed that for every green job created Spain lost between 2 and 3 jobs. Hence, while we have a 9% unemployment rate theirs is 19%. Question for you, assuming there is no relationship between carbon use by man and global climates would you still support the tax?
"PS: MTP just posted a poll comparison for Pres. approval at end of June: W = 50%
BO = 58%"
This is cherry picking at its finest. 50% represents that lowest approval rating of the lot. His composite average at the end of June 2001 was 56% with a range of 50% to 60%. What is interesting is he started at a composite of around 56% with the maximum being in the low 60's. So it is undeniable that the Messiah has fallen considerably in the first 6 months while Bush stayed consistent. Of course we will ignore comparisons post 9-11 because Bush was in the 85%+ approval rating range and rightly so.
Archie: Your best post so far, not that you care about my opinion. Keep up the good work and maybe we can have civil disagreements like I do with Hound.
|
|
Reply
Back
Search
Off-Topic Forum
»
New Hampshire Coast
»
Portsmouth
Login
|
Home
