Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AjaxPress
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
    You are not talking about real Conservatives. You are using a label to blanket blame a group when in fact it is not a True Conservative that believe what you say.

    Conservatism has always been about personal responsibility, about taking care of oneself and not having the government micromanage our lives.
    You're living in a dream world. Conservatism has never been about personal responsibility. That's what conservatives say to get votes, but in reality conservatism is about opposing whatever liberals propose. When liberals are against a mandate, conservatives are for it. When liberals are for a mandate, conservatives are against it.

    And sometimes conservatives go even beyond that. Observe the tax cut battle of November/December in the year 2011. Liberals were doing everything in their power to provide tax cuts to the middle class, something conservatives claim they want. Then the conservatives upheld the bill with games and antics. Conservatives claim they want to cut government spending so and when the liberals propose across the board cuts, conservatives raise up and block the bill because they want to ensure their pet projects don't get cut.

    Conservatism exists as an ideology of hatred and opposition to whatever gets proposed in government. That's why there are so many selfish bigots who embrace conservatism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcus1124
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    John Drake
    Just like a conservative, to be unable to see the difference between an enabler and a victim.

    Under some circumstances, you can be

    No, it was your choice to have unprotected sex. Some rape victims have used it as a cause of further civil action against the rapist, without much protest.

    And what percentage of unwanted pregnancy are the result of rape? Miniscule.

    And the fact that you use that example merely goes to demonstrate your complete lack of basic intellectual ability to make even the most basic and fundamental distinctions. We are not talking about rape here, we are talking generally about pregnancy, the overwhelming majority of which is the result of consensual acts, in which circumstances BOTH parties were completely responsible for their respective actions, and BOTH parties were perfectly capable of NOT engaging in those actions. For you to bring up rape as though it is the rule rather than the exception just demonstrates how incapable you are of having a rational discussion.

    While the law recognizes some extremely limited instances where the owner of a item can be held responsible for its use by criminals, let's not pretend that anti-gun zealots do not consider the mere fact of a gun being stolen as always and in every instance being evidence in and of itself that the owner didn't take proper steps in their view to guard against it. But again, we are talking about the most infrequent exceptions to the rule, not the rule. It is completely assinine to base public policy on the most limited of exceptions rather than the general rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wlessard
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Originally posted by John Drake View Post
    Just like a conservative, to be unable to see the difference between an enabler and a victim.

    Under some circumstances, you can be

    No, it was your choice to have unprotected sex. Some rape victims have used it as a cause of further civil action against the rapist, without much protest.
    Thats it keep finding ways to not blame the criminal in the first place and blame someone else. The criminal is just misunderstood and had a bad childhood. Boo Hoo.

    A child is a different issue. You ARE responsible for your child and YOU should be the one who makes sure they cannot and do not do things like steal your car. When I was about 4 or 5 my mother left me in the car while it was running as she ran inside the house to get something. I jumped in the driver's seat and put the car in gear and proceeded to back out and down the road. My mother was negligent in that act. Thankfully I wasn't hurt and only the car was damaged.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wlessard
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Originally posted by John Drake View Post
    Conservatives are strange about personal responsibility. If you get sick or laid off from your job you should accept "personal responsibility" for your resulting poverty and go live under a bridge. If their trained to fight attack dog eats your child, however, you should sue the dog, or if a criminal uses their gun to shoot you, you should sue the criminal, the fact that they had a shitty fence or didn't protect the gun properly is irrelevant...it's not their "personal responsibility" as they didn't do it themself.
    You are not talking about real Conservatives. You are using a label to blanket blame a group when in fact it is not a True Conservative that believe what you say.

    Conservatism has always been about personal responsibility, about taking care of oneself and not having the government micromanage our lives.

    A real Conservative doesn't say tough shit live under a bridge. He says stand up and find a way out for yourself. There is a big difference in what you said and what is reality. To use an oft quoted piece from the Bible. Give a man a fish and he has a meal. Teach a man to fish and he will feed his family for life. When I first entered the work force there was only 8 weeks of Unemployment. I knew people who were on unemployment who would do nothing for about 4 weeks. Then would scramble for the next 4 to get a job, any job.

    As for lawsuits. There are many stupid and idiotic ones out there. I think I know what you are saying despite your bad grammar if not then well. If someone trains a dog to attack and the dog attacks my child for no reason as well as being off their leash or out of the control of the owner, then negligence applies. A lawsuit to have the dog removed from the owner and hopefully retrained and damages against the owner is valid. How this is a political issue I do not know. Besides it does not matter whether I have a shitty fence or no fence at all. The owner of the dog is responsible to properly take care of his dog and make sure they are leashed. To suggest that the victim is somehow responsible for the crime against them is bullshit on the highest order.

    There is a guy on my street, he does not take proper precautions to keep his dog from getting loose. He knows the dog bolts for the door when he gets ready to go for a walk but instead of putting the leash on before opening the door he opens the door and calls the dog. If my dogs are out on their leashes and I am doing due diligence to take care of them and the other dog comes in my yard and a fight starts. That invading dog is going to get an axe in the head as I will protect my dogs as I would my children.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Drake
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Just like a conservative, to be unable to see the difference between an enabler and a victim.

    Under some circumstances, you can be

    No, it was your choice to have unprotected sex. Some rape victims have used it as a cause of further civil action against the rapist, without much protest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcus1124
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    John Drake
    Conservatives are strange about personal responsibility. If you get sick or laid off from your job you should accept "personal responsibility" for your resulting poverty and go live under a bridge. If their trained to fight attack dog eats your child, however, you should sue the dog, or if a criminal uses their gun to shoot you, you should sue the criminal, the fact that they had a shitty fence or didn't protect the gun properly is irrelevant...it's not their "personal responsibility" as they didn't do it themself.
    Gee, if you're going to blame gun owners for not 'protecting the gun properly', why wouldn't the person who it is used against by a criminal be held ultimately responsible for not protecting THEMSELVES properly?

    By your reasoning, anyone injured by a stolen car has a cause of action against the person who had their car stolen?

    How about this. You have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV, should you have a cause of action against not only that person, but whoever they got it from as well?

    Leave a comment:


  • John Drake
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Originally posted by Rude Boy View Post
    That's the way they think. Once they get theirs, fuck everyone else.

    It's the same with the Teabaggers using government services. It's okay when they do it, but if some "minority" uses government services, they're not being "personally responsible."
    Conservatives are strange about personal responsibility. If you get sick or laid off from your job you should accept "personal responsibility" for your resulting poverty and go live under a bridge. If their trained to fight attack dog eats your child, however, you should sue the dog, or if a criminal uses their gun to shoot you, you should sue the criminal, the fact that they had a shitty fence or didn't protect the gun properly is irrelevant...it's not their "personal responsibility" as they didn't do it themself.
    Last edited by John Drake; 02-18-2012, 05:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rude Boy
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
    OH...I see. Because your 'laziness and unwillingness of accepting responsibility for your actions' only cost taxpayers $135, it is OK for you. But not for others.
    That's the way they think. Once they get theirs, fuck everyone else.

    It's the same with the Teabaggers using government services. It's okay when they do it, but if some "minority" uses government services, they're not being "personally responsible."

    Leave a comment:


  • Bfgrn
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
    Moynihan also correctly identied partial birth abortion as what it is "infanticide". Guess that makes Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and every other democrat that supports it baby killers.
    When has Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or any other democrat supported it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Marcus1124
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Bfgrn
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    Moynihan also correctly identied partial birth abortion as what it is "infanticide". Guess that makes Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and every other democrat that supports it baby killers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bfgrn
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Originally posted by adaher View Post
    If you ask for it I'll provide it. No one provides a link to every single claim they make. Normally it's assumed that the people you are debating with have enough familiarity with the topic to not require a link to something as simple as the fact that there were competing public health options.
    The problem is adaher, you never provide any links, even when asked, you don't always comply. And I am surprised none of the moderators have called you out on this.

    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    Leave a comment:


  • adaher
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    If you ask for it I'll provide it. No one provides a link to every single claim they make. Normally it's assumed that the people you are debating with have enough familiarity with the topic to not require a link to something as simple as the fact that there were competing public health options.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bfgrn
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Originally posted by adaher View Post
    Ezra Klein - CBO: A Strong Public Plan Saves Lots of Money

    I expect those I talk with to know what they are talking about without needing a link for everything. If you don't know about the debate between the strong public option and the weak public option, then why are you making an issue of it in the first place?
    Listen adaher, here is how it works; if you make a claim, the burden is on YOU to provide documentation. THAT is what is 'expected' of everyone on this or any other discussion board. Do you believe those rules don't apply to you?

    Leave a comment:


  • adaher
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Ezra Klein - CBO: A Strong Public Plan Saves Lots of Money

    I expect those I talk with to know what they are talking about without needing a link for everything. If you don't know about the debate between the strong public option and the weak public option, then why are you making an issue of it in the first place?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bfgrn
    replied
    Re: Why Did Conservatives Originally Propose a Mandate?

    Originally posted by adaher View Post
    So you're saying that if there's a public option, he wouldn't need the mandate? If the public option had been an honest public option, paid for only by premiums, it would have gotten 60 Democratic votes. Since liberals tried to sneak through a public option that would wipe out the private competition since it would be backstopped by the federal government and could use predatory pricing, some Democrats could not support it.
    As usual, you emote without any proof.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X