The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 - Page 17

Mizzou B-ball fan · 03-17-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

But hasn't the complaint been about the level of care, rather than the cost of it? If the government ends up paying these premiums, then that's fine, since they were paying directly for care anyway. It seems like this is a step toward giving veterans more 'normal' care than one run by an underfunded VA -- or at least giving the VA better funding through private insurance premiums, if the government won't fund it properly.

I generally agree in regards to quality, but my point is that if the government uses privatized insurance, there's a high likelihood that they'll pay more in premiums than they ever did before and there's still no guarantee that the quality will improve. I'm not sure they fully understand the ramifications of what would happen if they moved it to privatized insurance. It could easily add more levels of management and costs rather than reduce the cost to the taxpayers.

JPhillips · 03-17-2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

But hasn't the complaint been about the level of care, rather than the cost of it? If the government ends up paying these premiums, then that's fine, since they were paying directly for care anyway. It seems like this is a step toward giving veterans more 'normal' care than one run by an underfunded VA -- or at least giving the VA better funding through private insurance premiums, if the government won't fund it properly.

I don't know if that's it. The VA does pretty good work and is going to get a sizable increase in funding if the current budget passes. It's such a small total amount of money that I'm not sure what the rational might be. When some more details get released to clarify the intent it might make more sense.

For now I'll resist the urge to get really peeved and wait for some information.

Passacaglia · 03-17-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I generally agree in regards to quality, but my point is that if the government uses privatized insurance, there's a high likelihood that they'll pay more in premiums than they ever did before and there's still no guarantee that the quality will improve. I'm not sure they fully understand the ramifications of what would happen if they moved it to privatized insurance. It could easily add more levels of management and costs rather than reduce the cost to the taxpayers.

I don't think I can agree with that -- moving it to privatized insurance would add more levels of management and costs than having the government pay for it, in your opinion? If you say so.

Passacaglia · 03-17-2009, 03:41 PM

Commie.

sabotai · 03-17-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's a left leaning country these days, not necessarily a message board thing.

what are you politically? - Front Office Football Central

Pretty old poll, but most of the people posting in the thread are still here, and I doubt things on this board have changed so much that it's now a "left-leaning board by a heavy margin".

I always thought this board to be pretty evenly mixed. Lots of republicans, lots of democrats, some independents and even a few representatives of the extreme.

sterlingice · 03-17-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Fixed your quote.

Enjoy Boise

SI

JPhillips · 03-17-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai

what are you politically? - Front Office Football Central

Pretty old poll, but most of the people posting in the thread are still here, and I doubt things on this board have changed so much that it's now a "left-leaning board by a heavy margin".

I always thought this board to be pretty evenly mixed. Lots of republicans, lots of democrats, some independents and Jon.

Fixed.

flere-imsaho · 03-17-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The result would be a significant change in how premiums are handled.

So... I already assumed that. Clearly making private insurance companies pay will only result in higher premiums - I think that's fairly straightforward.

I guess my question, which the article 100% didn't address, is why the Obama Administration is pursuing this as a possibility. I mean, there has to be a reason, even if it's a dumb one, but the article doesn't touch on this. Anyone know?

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 03-17-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I guess my question, which the article 100% didn't address, is why the Obama Administration is pursuing this as a possibility. I mean, there has to be a reason, even if it's a dumb one, but the article doesn't touch on this. Anyone know?

That's what I was trying to get at. It seems like such a poor move, just politically speaking, that I'm wondering what more there might be to the story. Unless Obama just wants to stick it to vets for some personal reason.

JPhillips · 03-17-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So... I already assumed that. Clearly making private insurance companies pay will only result in higher premiums - I think that's fairly straightforward.

I guess my question, which the article 100% didn't address, is why the Obama Administration is pursuing this as a possibility. I mean, there has to be a reason, even if it's a dumb one, but the article doesn't touch on this. Anyone know?

This is exactly why I object to posting a press release and calling it a news story. Clearly the American Legion has an agenda they're trying to push.

flere-imsaho · 03-17-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't know if that's it. The VA does pretty good work and is going to get a sizable increase in funding if the current budget passes.

Based on my brother's experience, I can say that once you beat their beancounters into submission, the VA does do pretty good work. The treatment he eventually got at their speciality center in the Twin Cities has been excellent, and put to rest a number of his lingering physiological issues.

Of course, it was a long road to get there, and included a few spots of getting the VA (using their own policies against them) to pay for private care he received (when no VA care was forthcoming).

lordscarlet · 03-17-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's the same old song and dance. Rather than addressing the core issue of whether Obama's change is an improvement, the usual stab is taken at Bush to divert attention from the issue. We get it already. Dubya made some mistakes and people on both sides of the issue know that. But on the topic at hand (from the current baseline, is Obama's change good) has little to do with the previous administration. History cannot be reversed, but current proposals need to be judged on their merit given the current circumstances. Partisan shots at previous administrations are distractions from the topic and little else.

Unfortunately not everyone can speak to the specific merits of a very large plan. Is it so wrong for someone to say "It got screwed up and I hope it gets fixed"? That does not mean they are playing partisan politics.

Big Fo · 03-17-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai

what are you politically? - Front Office Football Central

Pretty old poll, but most of the people posting in the thread are still here, and I doubt things on this board have changed so much that it's now a "left-leaning board by a heavy margin".

I always thought this board to be pretty evenly mixed. Lots of republicans, lots of democrats, some independents and even a few representatives of the extreme.

It's not the best comparison since one is asking for political leaning and the other who you're going to vote for/probably going to vote for, but there has been a shift:

March 2004

Code:

Democrat  	   26  	23.85%
Republican 	40 	36.70%
Independent 	16 	14.68%
Libertarian 	18 	16.51%
Other         	9 	8.26%

October 2008 FOFC Presidential Election Poll

Code:

I will definitely vote for McCain  	   	                  28  19.18%
I am leaning toward McCain, but still undecided 		   6 	4.11%
I will definitely vote for Obama 		                   74 	50.68%
I am leaning toward Obama, but still undecided 		   11 	7.53%
I am undecided and not leaning toward either 	         2 	1.37%
I will definitely vote for a third party candidate 		   7 	4.79%
I am undecided, but leaning toward third party... 	      6 	4.11%
I definitely won't be voting 		                    8 	5.48%
I am leaning toward not voting 		                  4 	2.74%

Repubs - 37% -> 23%
Dems - 24% -> 58%
Indy/Lib/Other third party 31% -> 9%

Not the best comparison as I said due to independents often choosing the guy they hate least in an election but still the shift is too big to dismiss IMO. It'd be interesting to see the results of a poll with the same parameters as the 2004 one.

RainMaker · 03-17-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabotai

what are you politically? - Front Office Football Central

Pretty old poll, but most of the people posting in the thread are still here, and I doubt things on this board have changed so much that it's now a "left-leaning board by a heavy margin".

I always thought this board to be pretty evenly mixed. Lots of republicans, lots of democrats, some independents and even a few representatives of the extreme.

That was also 2004. I think a lot of people have adjusted their political beliefs over the last 4-5 years.

I'm not in the party fight, but there are more Democrats registered than Republicans. They hold heavy majorities in the House and Senate and had states like Georgia and Montana in play this election.

flere-imsaho · 03-17-2009, 04:10 PM

Where's Kodos?!

Flasch186 · 03-17-2009, 04:34 PM

the polls arent rolling averages so theyre bunk anyways

Big Fo · 03-17-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the polls arent rolling averages so theyre bunk anyways

Dude, don't wear out that meme before the midterm elections.

Flasch186 · 03-17-2009, 04:48 PM

its important to keep garbage rhetoric at the tip of the spear for when it is attempted to be hammered out again

DaddyTorgo · 03-17-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's the same old song and dance. Rather than addressing the core issue of whether Obama's change is an improvement, the usual stab is taken at Bush to divert attention from the issue. We get it already. Dubya made some mistakes and people on both sides of the issue know that. But on the topic at hand (from the current baseline, is Obama's change good) has little to do with the previous administration. History cannot be reversed, but current proposals need to be judged on their merit given the current circumstances. Partisan shots at previous administrations are distractions from the topic and little else.

I didn't address the core issue of whether Obama's change is an improvement because frankly in that press release there weren't enough details for me to be able to tell if it'd be an improvement. It was just "oh this is what they want to do and they say it'd save this much money." No details about how it would potentially work to enable me to evaluate the policy. But from what I read in there, it doesn't sound promising and if it's not I'll take him to task for it.

I know we've been down this road before (at least I think we have) but my cousin went to West Point and him and his friends are active-duty right now. Some of them (a large #) are in Iraq. I thank god everyday that he's in Japan (although he'd rather be in Iraq). So when I say "Bush & co. really screwed vets healthcare up bigtime" it's not to take a partisan shot at Bush. It's because the VA, which my cousin will be depending on for healthcare at some point, is a pile of dogshit right now. A steaming turd. And I honestly don't know enough about the intricacies of the issue to know when it started. I know that by the time the first Gulf War was over it was a mess, and I know that Clinton didn't fix it. All I know about the specifics of the situation is that there was major media outrage for a short time there during Bush's last presidency (due of course to the existence of significant armed conflict) about just how bad it had gotten. That's not taking a partisan-shot. That's taking a non-partisan shot at a douchebag who deserves it (and if a Dem deserves it I'll call them a douchebag too). On this issue with me it's not about left or right. It's about supporting the soldiers.

flere-imsaho · 03-17-2009, 08:35 PM

DT: This is OT, but prior to your cousin/friends coming back to the States, you might want to get some advice from Raiders Army about how to handle the transition vis-a-vis the VA, especially if any are injured. He gave me some useful advice that was relevant for Ben. Given the way the VA works, and the potential complexity of injuries (including psychological - don't forget these), one can't be too armed with knowledge.

larrymcg421 · 03-17-2009, 08:42 PM

I seriously give Bush a ton of credit for this:

Bush refuses to criticize Obama in Canada

Flasch186 · 03-17-2009, 08:45 PM

Bush looking good in the post season.

Mizzou B-ball fan · 03-18-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I seriously give Bush a ton of credit for this:

Bush refuses to criticize Obama in Canada

Dubya has honestly been very respectful of Obama in the transition and afterwards. They started the transition early and got a lot of stuff out of the way. He's clear of politics now and wants it to stay that way.

I would note that Cheney has been the exact opposite since leaving office, but he's always been a know-it-all and never avoided a shot when he had one (yeah, the jokes are plentiful in that regard).

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 03-18-2009, 08:56 AM

My memory is poor, but most presidents seem to disengage from the muck after leaving. I know Clinton has been back (and one could argue that he was pulled back in, but knowing Bill...) and Truman said some not-so-nice-things about Nixon. Can't really think of many others, and that's a good thing. Slinging mud after you've been president is not very becoming.

flere-imsaho · 03-18-2009, 09:09 AM

I give Bush all the credit in the world for the way he handled the transition. By all accounts this was one of the smoothest transitions on record, and that's something considering the issues on the table. Apparently Bush told his staff, the day after the election, that Obama was going to be President now and he wanted to do everything in their power to make him able to hit the ground running.

I think history will look back on the Bush Administration and focus more on Cheney, to be honest, maybe even to the point of calling it a de facto Cheney Administration. Bush clearly opened up a number of doors for Cheney with his decisions, and then didn't realize how much he (and others) were being played by Cheney until his second term, by which time it was far too late.

This is not to say I think he was a good president. I basically think he was incompetent and a detriment to the country. But with every day it's more and more clear that most of the real active damage that was done by this Administration originated from the Office of the Vice President.

Buccaneer · 03-18-2009, 09:47 AM

flere, I had been saying that for many years. I am somewhat neutral on Bush but he did open the door for abuse - and the Cheney Cabal (with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al) took full advantage of it.

flere-imsaho · 03-18-2009, 10:06 AM

Wrong President at the wrong time with the absolute worst possible Vice President for him. That's my call.

Mizzou B-ball fan · 03-18-2009, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Wrong President at the wrong time with the absolute worst possible Vice President for him. That's my call.

We talking about the election of Gore or Bush here?

Flasch186 · 03-18-2009, 10:26 AM

Gore was much less effectual than Cheney so whether positive or negative there is no question that Cheney did more than Gore.

Mizzou B-ball fan · 03-18-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Gore was much less effectual than Cheney so whether positive or negative there is no question that Cheney did more than Gore.

I was referring to Gore's win in 2000 when he became president.

sterlingice · 03-18-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I was referring to Gore's win in 2000 when he became president.

As always, lively, fun, educational, and respectful as you said in the Recession thread a few minutes ago

SI

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 03-18-2009, 10:56 AM

why are you dragging partisanship into this

Mizzou B-ball fan · 03-18-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As always, lively, fun, educational, and respectful as you said in the Recession thread a few minutes ago

SI

I'll refrain from attempting bad political humor moving forward.

Flasch186 · 03-18-2009, 11:17 AM

when convenient

larrymcg421 · 03-18-2009, 12:06 PM

This little sidebar reminds me of one of my favorite Onion articles:

Supreme Court Overturns Bush v. Gore

sterlingice · 03-18-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

This little sidebar reminds me of one of my favorite Onion articles:

Supreme Court Overturns Bush v. Gore

Hadn't seen that before

SI

lungs · 03-19-2009, 05:45 PM

Sick people are going to be able to smoke their dope in states that allow it:

Link

A step in the right direction. That's about all we'll see this term, I'm guessing. Can't use political capital on dope, as much as it pains me to say so.

lungs · 03-19-2009, 05:46 PM

dola

sick people, or people that have doctors that will give out pot prescriptions for next to nothing

Buccaneer · 03-19-2009, 07:25 PM

I am seriously thinking about emailing Obama and telling him that the presidency is for 4 years - not 100 fucking days. He and his administration need to quit acting like everything is on internet time and actually think about each actions. Instead he acts like everything needs to be "solved" RIGHT THIS FUCKING SECOND.

JPhillips · 03-19-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I am seriously thinking about emailing Obama and telling him that the presidency is for 4 years - not 100 fucking days. He and his administration need to quit acting like everything is on internet time and actually think about each actions. Instead he acts like everything needs to be "solved" RIGHT THIS FUCKING SECOND.

An email! Next thing you know you'll make a sternly worded phone call.

Buccaneer · 03-19-2009, 08:26 PM

If the big things were to take place more locally, then I would meet face to face. But since people like you and many others prefer to give most of the power to people sitting up to 3000 miles away in their marbled towers, that's the best us little peasants can do.

panerd · 03-19-2009, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lungs

Sick people are going to be able to smoke their dope in states that allow it:

Link

A step in the right direction. That's about all we'll see this term, I'm guessing. Can't use political capital on dope, as much as it pains me to say so.

I saw that. The feds will only go after people in violation of both federal and state law. Meaning they respect the rights of the states to make the decision. Meaning there is no need for a federal drug policy. What am I missing with my logic?

sabotai · 03-19-2009, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

I saw that. The feds will only go after people in violation of both federal and state law. Meaning they respect the rights of the states to make the decision. Meaning there is no need for a federal drug policy. What am I missing with my logic?

You're not thinking of the children!

RainMaker · 03-19-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

I saw that. The feds will only go after people in violation of both federal and state law. Meaning they respect the rights of the states to make the decision. Meaning there is no need for a federal drug policy. What am I missing with my logic?

Everything is bizzare now. Republicans are upset with Obama for decreasing federal power and giving it to the states. They are also on the same side as Code Pink when it comes to Geithner.

panerd · 03-19-2009, 09:55 PM

I think the war on drugs is going to end really soon. Not saying drugs will be legal but we won't spend the money on operations in South America and as much on the DEA. I don't rule out them legalizing pot for tax purposes if things get really desperate.

sterlingice · 03-19-2009, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

I think the war on drugs is going to end really soon. Not saying drugs will be legal but we won't spend the money on operations in South America and as much on the DEA. I don't rule out them legalizing pot for tax purposes if things get really desperate.

And drastically reducing drug sentences- I see that happening sooner rather than later. Housing prisoners for carrying around a little bit of pot is too damn expensive.

SI

panerd · 03-19-2009, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And drastically reducing drug sentences- I see that happening sooner rather than later. Housing prisoners for carrying around a little bit of pot is too damn expensive.

SI

Sadly then there will be some statistically irrelavent crime that causes the sentencing guidelines to go back to the previous out of whack ones. Like 200,000 people will get early parole and one guy will rape a 10-year old or shoot somebody selling drugs and that will explain why we need to waste the money on the other 199,999.

Buccaneer · 03-19-2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

Sadly then there will be some statistically irrelavent crime that causes the sentencing guidelines to go back to the previous out of whack ones. Like 200,000 people will get early parole and one guy will rape a 10-year old or shoot somebody selling drugs and that will explain why we need to waste the money on the other 199,999.

They have been doing that for decades. Parade a few poor families and you get $billions for the War on Poverty (I know there are more than a few but couldn't there have been smarter ways of tackling this instead?). Have a singular act of terrorism (plus a few copycats) and you get $billions for the War on Terror. Have a bad druggie committing a bad crime and you get $billions for the War on Drugs. You get some statistical evidence for man-made causes and you get $billions for War on Climate Change. Have a handful of really bad, greedy financial institutions and you get $trillions for Bailouts. You get some circumstantial evidence for WMD and you get $billions for War on Iraq.

In Congress, you get the Laws of the Bad Apple that must be applied as an expensive one-size-fits-all solution. Yet people keep encouraging this.

lordscarlet · 03-20-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

If the big things were to take place more locally, then I would meet face to face. But since people like you and many others prefer to give most of the power to people sitting up to 3000 miles away in their marbled towers, that's the best us little peasants can do.

I don't know what you're talking about, it's like 15 blocks away.

Dutch · 03-20-2009, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I don't know what you're talking about, it's like 15 blocks away.

I thought everybody within 20 blocks of the White House smoked crack?

View Poll Results: How is Obama doing? (poll started 6/6)
Great - above my expectations	18	6.87%
Good - met most of my expectations	66	25.19%
Average - so so, disappointed a little	64	24.43%
Bad - sold us out	101	38.55%
Trout - don't know yet	13	4.96%
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll

03-17-2009, 04:34 PM	#816
Flasch186 Coordinator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Jacksonville, FL	the polls arent rolling averages so theyre bunk anyways __________________ Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL

03-17-2009, 04:48 PM	#818
Flasch186 Coordinator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Jacksonville, FL	its important to keep garbage rhetoric at the tip of the spear for when it is attempted to be hammered out again __________________ Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL

03-17-2009, 08:42 PM	#821
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	I seriously give Bush a ton of credit for this: Bush refuses to criticize Obama in Canada __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

03-17-2009, 08:45 PM	#822
Flasch186 Coordinator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Jacksonville, FL	Bush looking good in the post season. __________________ Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL

03-17-2009, 03:41 PM	#804
Passacaglia Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Big Ten Country	Commie.

03-17-2009, 04:10 PM	#815
flere-imsaho Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chicagoland	Where's Kodos?!

03-17-2009, 08:35 PM	#820
flere-imsaho Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chicagoland	DT: This is OT, but prior to your cousin/friends coming back to the States, you might want to get some advice from Raiders Army about how to handle the transition vis-a-vis the VA, especially if any are injured. He gave me some useful advice that was relevant for Ben. Given the way the VA works, and the potential complexity of injuries (including psychological - don't forget these), one can't be too armed with knowledge.

03-18-2009, 08:56 AM	#824
Ronnie Dobbs2 Pro Rookie Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Bahston Mass	My memory is poor, but most presidents seem to disengage from the muck after leaving. I know Clinton has been back (and one could argue that he was pulled back in, but knowing Bill...) and Truman said some not-so-nice-things about Nixon. Can't really think of many others, and that's a good thing. Slinging mud after you've been president is not very becoming. __________________ There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think

03-18-2009, 09:09 AM	#825
flere-imsaho Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chicagoland	I give Bush all the credit in the world for the way he handled the transition. By all accounts this was one of the smoothest transitions on record, and that's something considering the issues on the table. Apparently Bush told his staff, the day after the election, that Obama was going to be President now and he wanted to do everything in their power to make him able to hit the ground running. I think history will look back on the Bush Administration and focus more on Cheney, to be honest, maybe even to the point of calling it a de facto Cheney Administration. Bush clearly opened up a number of doors for Cheney with his decisions, and then didn't realize how much he (and others) were being played by Cheney until his second term, by which time it was far too late. This is not to say I think he was a good president. I basically think he was incompetent and a detriment to the country. But with every day it's more and more clear that most of the real active damage that was done by this Administration originated from the Office of the Vice President.

03-18-2009, 09:47 AM	#826
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	flere, I had been saying that for many years. I am somewhat neutral on Bush but he did open the door for abuse - and the Cheney Cabal (with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al) took full advantage of it.

03-18-2009, 10:06 AM	#827
flere-imsaho Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chicagoland	Wrong President at the wrong time with the absolute worst possible Vice President for him. That's my call.

03-18-2009, 10:26 AM	#829
Flasch186 Coordinator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Jacksonville, FL	Gore was much less effectual than Cheney so whether positive or negative there is no question that Cheney did more than Gore. __________________ Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL

03-18-2009, 10:56 AM	#832
Ronnie Dobbs2 Pro Rookie Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Bahston Mass	why are you dragging partisanship into this __________________ There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think

03-18-2009, 11:17 AM	#834
Flasch186 Coordinator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Jacksonville, FL	when convenient __________________ Jacksonville-florida-homes-for-sale Putting a New Spin on Real Estate! ----------------------------------------------------------- Commissioner of the USFL USFL

03-18-2009, 12:06 PM	#835
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	This little sidebar reminds me of one of my favorite Onion articles: Supreme Court Overturns Bush v. Gore __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

03-19-2009, 05:45 PM	#837
lungs Pro Rookie Join Date: May 2002 Location: Prairie du Sac, WI	Sick people are going to be able to smoke their dope in states that allow it: Link A step in the right direction. That's about all we'll see this term, I'm guessing. Can't use political capital on dope, as much as it pains me to say so.

03-19-2009, 05:46 PM	#838
lungs Pro Rookie Join Date: May 2002 Location: Prairie du Sac, WI	dola sick people, or people that have doctors that will give out pot prescriptions for next to nothing

03-19-2009, 07:25 PM	#839
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	I am seriously thinking about emailing Obama and telling him that the presidency is for 4 years - not 100 fucking days. He and his administration need to quit acting like everything is on internet time and actually think about each actions. Instead he acts like everything needs to be "solved" RIGHT THIS FUCKING SECOND.

03-19-2009, 08:26 PM	#841
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	If the big things were to take place more locally, then I would meet face to face. But since people like you and many others prefer to give most of the power to people sitting up to 3000 miles away in their marbled towers, that's the best us little peasants can do.

03-19-2009, 09:55 PM	#845
panerd Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: St. Louis	I think the war on drugs is going to end really soon. Not saying drugs will be legal but we won't spend the money on operations in South America and as much on the DEA. I don't rule out them legalizing pot for tax purposes if things get really desperate.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)