PoliGAF Debate #3 Thread of Hey Joe, where you goin' with that plunger in your hand

Status
Not open for further replies.
PrivateWHudson said:
I agree with all of that; unfortunately, I don't have faith that the current system allows the right people to be in power.

Also, most of those things you mention were derivatives from defense spending, something that even Jay would probably agree is one place where the federal government should step up to the plate.
Click to expand...

Every single one of them in the second paragraph, in fact. The highway system is most commonly used for its secondary purpose - its primary purpose is for moving troops and vehicles across the country quickly in case of invasion.
 
PrivateWHudson said:
even Jay would probably agree is one place where the federal government should step up to the plate.
Click to expand...


We stepped up to the plate in that area and then ate 5 more plates. And then finally puked. And are now going back for more.
 
JayDubya said:
Every single one of them in the second paragraph, in fact. The highway system is most commonly used for its secondary purpose - its primary purpose is for moving troops and vehicles across the country quickly in case of invasion.
Click to expand...

And as alternative runways in the event that airports have been bombed...correct?
 
Fatalah said:
I'm going to be a little livejournal-ish right now but does anyone else wake up every day excited that we're one day closer to November 4th? I look at my calendar several times a day to remind myself what the date is.

Right now I'm looking at my Outlook calendar and I love how weekends are like timewarps--- because the news cycle pauses. By Monday the date is magically 2 days closer to Election Day.

This weekend might be interesting though-- Palin on SNL. Possible Powell endorsement on Sunday. Big weekend.
Click to expand...

:lol

I do the samething everyday. The Weekend timewraps are the best.
 
Stoney Mason said:
Let's face it when Republicans talk about government spending they are talking about anything that could actually help people. The only reason they don't put up an aggresive fight against things like universal education and social security or hell even mail is that they failed to effectively demonize those issues. Anything else is godless socialism.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with this. You can spend money without creating 1000's of government jobs to help people. By providing incentives and other financial benefits to private enterprise you can guide them to accomplish a certain task.

So, it's not really the money that is the issue, its the amount of that money and the production you get from every dollar spent.

At least, that's what I believed was the MO until Bush took over.
 
PrivateWHudson said:
Don't confuse what we're doing in Iraq with defense.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Iraq. That's just the cherry on top of a bloated pie. Our general defense spending is out control and has been for a long time because of the way we conduct ourselves. The fact that neither Democrats or Republicans challenge it anymore is the great conceit. In this area I'm lock step in agreement with Nader.
 
PrivateWHudson said:
The way they talk about it, I always thought it was a separate filer. If not, then...um...nevermind.
Click to expand...

Well now I'm confused, because what I'm doing is finding the average tax rate. This is how I learned the difference between marginal and average tax rate:

Take a man who earns $20,000 a year. His marginal tax rate is 17% because if he earns an extra dollar that is the rate at which he will be charged. His average tax rate will be different, as he is exempt from paying taxes on the first $13,000 he earns. Thus he has to pay 17% on the remaining $7,000, for a tax bill of $1,190. That $1,190 represents 5.95% of his total income, for an average tax rate of 5.95%.
Click to expand...

Here is CNN's factcheck:

For example: If a small-business owner makes $210,000 in taxable income, he edges into the 33% bracket, one of the two top tax rates that Obama would like to raise.

But he would pay the higher tax only on the amount that exceeds the cutoff - in 2007, the two top tax rates applied to single filers with income of $160,850 or more and joint filers with income of at least $195,850. As a single filer, this business owner would see his federal taxes increase $1,475 under Obama's plan, which calls for raising the 33% tax rate to 36%.

"While Obama does favor raising the top two rates, the quote is not true because not all the small business income of those in the top two rates is taxed at the 33% and 35% rates," said Gerald Prante, a senior economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
Click to expand...

I'm using the same mathematics in my calculations. Read the bold part. Again, same calcuations, so my original number was correct.
 
Stoney Mason said:
We stepped up to the plate in that area and then ate 5 more plates. And then finally puked. And are now going back for more.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd agree with that, at least not wholesale.

Our "defense" budget is both too high and not a high enough percentage of our total budget. It is also mismanaged.

We spend too much on having troops stationed overseas and maintaining bases and defending other nations that need to spend their own money defending themselves. We spend too much on having too many active troops.

R&D of new tech is relatively cheaper, especially since it mostly consists of telling companies what you want and having different firms compete to make a better and cheaper prototype. The technological edge is more important than most other factors. When one of your birds can shoot down two squadrons of theirs, you don't need as many planes, pilots, carriers, support staff, construction of all of the above, etc.
 
I like how all these republican assholes are up in arms about someone who makes a comfortable living being taxed a few bucks extra to help those not that well off- if you suggest dropping their ludicrous financial support we give Israel by a penny, one of the richest and militarily advanced countries in the world, they hit the fucking fan.

One of the things that scares me about a McCain presidency is that Lieberman will have his ear, and it definitely looks like he has alot of influence.
 
JayDubya said:
Every single one of them in the second paragraph, in fact. The highway system is most commonly used for its secondary purpose - its primary purpose is for moving troops and vehicles across the country quickly in case of invasion.
Click to expand...
The primary purpose for the dead-end residential street in front of my house is to move troops to California? Fascinating.
 
Interesting that Obama is doubling down on going after McCain's healthcare plan.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_health_care_assault_part_498.html?showall

McCain focused a large portion of his recent economic proposals at seniors, clearly hoping to shore up support there. Obama is now going very heavily run an ad about the WSJ article about McCain's proposed cuts to Medicare. Ben Smith doesn't connect those dots, but I think it's partly an extension of Obama's strategy, and partly a response to McCain's proposals.

The ad is here: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_It_Gets_Worse.html?showall

It says everything that in the final days of the election, Obama is banking on policy issues and McCain is banking on fear and racism.
 
The Lamonster said:
Setting up the stage for Obama's upcoming Saturday rally underneath the St. Louis Arch!!

23b137a3-6e77-42a9-b01c-5ee2ec638d45.Large.jpg
729d1107-9871-4c78-a0f2-81c4cb8a9bfa.Large.jpg



Any St. Louis Gaffers want to meet up afterwards, grab a beer?
Click to expand...


I am SO jealous. I have to work and I can't get out of it, as does my wife.


TEARS
 
ToxicAdam said:
I don't really agree with this. You can spend money without creating 1000's of government jobs to help people. By providing incentives and other financial benefits to private enterprise you can guide them to accomplish a certain task.

So, it's not really the money that is the issue, its the amount of that money and the production you get from every dollar spent.

At least, that's what I believed was the MO until Bush took over.
Click to expand...

This is the funademntal divide between Republicans and Democrats. That the private sector is always better at achieving certain goals than the government is. "Better" is highly subjective depending on the side who is viewing the issue. I don't generally like to get in that argument because it is far more complex and a lengthy discussion. It is generally easier to argue the specific propositions of each side on particular issues since neither party is generally at the extreme of these ideologies anymore except for certain unique cases.
 
Stoney Mason said:
Let's face it when Republicans talk about government spending they are talking about anything that could actually help people. The only reason they don't put up an aggresive fight against things like universal education and social security or hell even mail is that they failed to effectively demonize those issues. Anything else is godless socialism.
Click to expand...

I agree; people completely take for granted what the end results of government spending and investment are. They see things like satellites, roads, the Internet, without appreciating how it came into existence. They receive services like Medicare/Medicaid, education, law enforcement, without appreciating how they are funded. It's just too easy to use taxes as a bogeyman for those unwilling to examine the world around them and see all that has been enabled by the investment of our tax dollars under the stewardship of our government at a local and federal level.

Sure, there's always room for improvement in terms of efficiency and minimizing waste, but in such a large system, just like any other complex system (take the power loss from a car engine to the wheels, for example), there is bound to be loss somewhere in the system.

Government spending is necessary; we can only work to elect those who would most responsibly and intelligently, with an eye towards the future, spend on programs that would benefit the country and the citizens.
 
JayDubya said:
I'm not sure I'd agree with that, at least not wholesale.

Our "defense" budget is both too high and not a high enough percentage of our total budget. It is also mismanaged.

We spend too much on having troops stationed overseas and maintaining bases and defending other nations that need to spend their own money defending themselves. We spend too much on having too many active troops.

R&D of new tech is relatively cheaper, especially since it mostly consists of telling companies what you want and having different firms compete to make a better and cheaper prototype. The technological edge is more important than most other factors. When one of your birds can shoot down two squadrons of theirs, you don't need as many planes, pilots, carriers, support staff, construction of all of the above, etc.
Click to expand...

This is one of the few issues personally I think we have some common ground on. The notion that we need the military we need is imo a modern empire view of the united states and came to full fruition with reagan. I don't personally feel it's a conservative position although due to political trends it currently is. I give credit to Ron Paul as he was the most eloquent attack dog for this position on either side Democrat or Republicans in the debates. I love Obama but he is not arguing a fundamentally radical change from what America has been doing for a long time in this area. He is arguing for a smarter position which he is correct in doing but the real argument remains underneath that. The problem is no one wants to argue that case because it is both unelectable and unpopular which is pretty much Ron Paul on a national level.
 
JayDubya said:
Every single one of them in the second paragraph, in fact. The highway system is most commonly used for its secondary purpose - its primary purpose is for moving troops and vehicles across the country quickly in case of invasion.
Click to expand...

While defense was part of the rationale in developing the interstate highway system, it was never (nor is it now) its primary purpose (even if it might have been stated so historically).
 
You may have noticed -- there was a lot of talk about Senator Obama's tax increases and Joe the Plumber. Last weekend, Senator Obama showed up in Joe's driveway to ask for his vote, and Joe asked Senator Obama a tough question. I'm glad he did; I think Senator Obama could use a few more tough questions.


The response from Senator Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe. People are digging through his personal life and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house. He didn't ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn't recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.
Click to expand...

What the fuck, McCain? YOU are the one that put Joe in the limelight, not Obama. So its Obama's fault the guy has a media following now? And Obama smeared him how? Fuck you.
 
JayDubya said:
Agreed, there is a core difference. I believe that government cannot be entrusted with these types of investments, government erodes transparency because it abhors it, and the notion of government as responsible steward is a risible notion with no precedent.
Click to expand...
Hey, guess what, you're both right. Fortunately for us in the real world though, we depend on a system where all of these interests compete and check each other. You know, those "checks and balances" you mentioned earlier. The key question is what institution can be held more accountable and in a way that serves the public interest. Private entities hate transparency even more, but are controlled on a one-dollar-one-vote basis and the average citizen doesn't have the cash nor clout to wield any leverage. The media has the ability to prompt wider action, but they can only depend on what information they can obtain without the force of law, and even then it's all about who pays attention. Government though, has the resources to extract information and the ability to demand accountability. Who, then, watches government? Well, we all do, or at least, we're supposed to. Democracy in any form doesn't really work when the electorate shirks its duties.

Then again, you did mention earlier how you failed to see the difference between one-dollar-one-vote and one-person-one-vote, so I can see where you side with private interests.
 
gkrykewy said:
While defense was part of the rationale in developing the interstate highway system, it was never (nor is it now) its primary purpose (even if it might have been stated so historically).
Click to expand...

No, it is still its primary purpose. If needed the military has full priority over the IHS. We haven't exactly been invaded since 1956, but that is what the IHS was built for.

That it has other incidental benefits in its secondary / tertiary / etc. roles does not detract from that.
 
JayDubya said:
No, it is still its primary purpose. If needed the military has full priority over the IHS. We haven't exactly been invaded.
Click to expand...

First priority =/= primary purpose. Emergency vehicles have first priority on all public roadways, but that does not mean the primary purpose of all roadways is to carry emergency vehicles.
 
The Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama. The letter is rather well written, well rounded, and rather gratitious to both candidates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../10/16/AR2008101603436.html?wpisrc=newsletter

I'll paste it for those who don't want to hit the link.

Barack Obama for President


Friday, October 17, 2008; Page A24

THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

The first question, in fact, might be why either man wants the job. Start with two ongoing wars, both far from being won; an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan; a resurgent Russia menacing its neighbors; a terrorist-supporting Iran racing toward nuclear status; a roiling Middle East; a rising China seeking its place in the world. Stir in the threat of nuclear or biological terrorism, the burdens of global poverty and disease, and accelerating climate change. Domestically, wages have stagnated while public education is failing a generation of urban, mostly minority children. Now add the possibility of the deepest economic trough since the Great Depression.

Not even his fiercest critics would blame President Bush for all of these problems, and we are far from being his fiercest critic. But for the past eight years, his administration, while pursuing some worthy policies (accountability in education, homeland security, the promotion of freedom abroad), has also championed some stunningly wrongheaded ones (fiscal recklessness, torture, utter disregard for the planet's ecological health) and has acted too often with incompetence, arrogance or both. A McCain presidency would not equal four more years, but outside of his inner circle, Mr. McCain would draw on many of the same policymakers who have brought us to our current state. We believe they have richly earned, and might even benefit from, some years in the political wilderness.

OF COURSE, Mr. Obama offers a great deal more than being not a Republican. There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously. Mr. Obama's economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health. Both men have pledged to tackle climate change.

Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education, another subject of only modest interest to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama would focus attention on early education and on helping families so that another generation of poor children doesn't lose out. His budgets would be less likely to squeeze out important programs such as Head Start and Pell grants. Though he has been less definitive than we would like, he supports accountability measures for public schools and providing parents choices by means of charter schools.

A better health-care system also is crucial to bolstering U.S. competitiveness and relieving worker insecurity. Mr. McCain is right to advocate an end to the tax favoritism showed to employer plans. This system works against lower-income people, and Mr. Obama has disparaged the McCain proposal in deceptive ways. But Mr. McCain's health plan doesn't do enough to protect those who cannot afford health insurance. Mr. Obama hopes to steer the country toward universal coverage by charting a course between government mandates and individual choice, though we question whether his plan is affordable or does enough to contain costs.

The next president is apt to have the chance to nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. Given the court's current precarious balance, we think Obama appointees could have a positive impact on issues from detention policy and executive power to privacy protections and civil rights.

Overshadowing all of these policy choices may be the financial crisis and the recession it is likely to spawn. It is almost impossible to predict what policies will be called for by January, but certainly the country will want in its president a combination of nimbleness and steadfastness -- precisely the qualities Mr. Obama has displayed during the past few weeks. When he might have been scoring political points against the incumbent, he instead responsibly urged fellow Democrats in Congress to back Mr. Bush's financial rescue plan. He has surrounded himself with top-notch, experienced, centrist economic advisers -- perhaps the best warranty that, unlike some past presidents of modest experience, Mr. Obama will not ride into town determined to reinvent every policy wheel. Some have disparaged Mr. Obama as too cool, but his unflappability over the past few weeks -- indeed, over two years of campaigning -- strikes us as exactly what Americans might want in their president at a time of great uncertainty.

ON THE SECOND set of issues, having to do with keeping America safe in a dangerous world, it is a closer call. Mr. McCain has deep knowledge and a longstanding commitment to promoting U.S. leadership and values.

But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America's place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran's nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.

Mr. Obama's greatest deviation from current policy is also our biggest worry: his insistence on withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a fixed timeline. Thanks to the surge that Mr. Obama opposed, it may be feasible to withdraw many troops during his first two years in office. But if it isn't -- and U.S. generals have warned that the hard-won gains of the past 18 months could be lost by a precipitous withdrawal -- we can only hope and assume that Mr. Obama would recognize the strategic importance of success in Iraq and adjust his plans.

We also can only hope that the alarming anti-trade rhetoric we have heard from Mr. Obama during the campaign would give way to the understanding of the benefits of trade reflected in his writings. A silver lining of the financial crisis may be the flexibility it gives Mr. Obama to override some of the interest groups and members of Congress in his own party who oppose open trade, as well as to pursue the entitlement reform that he surely understands is needed.

IT GIVES US no pleasure to oppose Mr. McCain. Over the years, he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president.

But the stress of a campaign can reveal some essential truths, and the picture of Mr. McCain that emerged this year is far from reassuring. To pass his party's tax-cut litmus test, he jettisoned his commitment to balanced budgets. He hasn't come up with a coherent agenda, and at times he has seemed rash and impulsive. And we find no way to square his professed passion for America's national security with his choice of a running mate who, no matter what her other strengths, is not prepared to be commander in chief.

ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."

But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
Click to expand...
 
I love how McCain said raising taxes will kill jobs. Hmmm. Where does that sound familiar? Oh yeah! Right before Clinton's 1993 economic package was signed into law!

Newt Gingrich: "Clinton's tax increases will kill jobs!"

Steve Forbes: "If you raise taxes, the economy will be doomed!"

Seriously, give it up Republicans. That weak shit didn't work before and it won't work now:

Lowered Interest Rates and Increased Productivity

- 1993 Plan - Fiscal Responsibility Produced an Immediate Drop in Interest Rates: Even though the recession had technically ended when President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, America remained mired in high unemployment and slow economic growth. The passage of the deficit reducing legislation almost immediately led to a drop in interest rates, which spurred investment and led to an increase in the rate of job creation, wage growth and productivity.

- According to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the '93 plan was "an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter." [House Banking Committee Testimony, 2/20/96]

- "Clinton's biggest gift to consumers was the sharp drop in interest rates in 1993. Following the President's early drive to lower the deficit, the Federal Reserve cut short term rates while bond traders drove down long-term rates, sending 30-year fixed mortgages from 8.31 percent in November 1992 to 6.83 percent in October 1993. That's the lowest overall mortgage rate since 1971." [Money Magazine, August 1996]

- "Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." [Business Week, 5/19/97]

- Today - Families have Enjoyed $2,000 Effective Tax Cut: Wall Street analysts credit deficit reduction with lowering interest rates by 2 full percentage points. [Goldman Sachs, GSWIRE Undistorted by the Budget Surplus, April 14, 2000]. This means that a family taking out a home mortgage of $100,000 expects to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments. Thanks in part to low mortgage rates, the homeownership rate increased to 67 percent in 1999 --the highest rate on record. Lower interest rates also cut both car payments and student loan payments by $200 annually for families taking out typical loans.

Cut Taxes and for Small Businesses to Create Jobs and Build the Economy

- 1993 Plan - Tax Cuts and Investment Incentives for 90 Percent of Small Businesses: The economic plan included tax cuts and investment incentives for small business owners, including a targeted capital gains tax cut, an extension of health insurance deductions and increased expensing. Ninety percent of American small businesses were eligible for a tax cut through incentives to invest in their businesses and create jobs.

- Today - Six Million New Small Businesses: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore came to office, the economy has created over 22 million jobs. Over 90 percent of these jobs are in the private sector and 80 percent of all new jobs have been created by small businesses. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, nearly 6 million small businesses have been created.

Clinton-Gore Economic Plan Invested in the American People

Not only did President Clinton and Vice President Gore reverse the failed economic polices that had resulted in a sea of red ink, they also reversed 12 years of neglect of working families. Their economic strategy invests in America's future by rewarding those who work hard and play by the rules. Their strategy has transformed America, so that we now enjoy the lowest crime rate in 25 years, the smallest welfare rolls in 30 years and the highest child immunization rate in history. Today, more young people are graduating from high school and going to college, more Americans enjoy clean air and clean water, and more Americans are confident about the future of our nation. The 1993 economic plan was the first step in this strategy, cutting taxes for working families, preserving and protecting Medicare, and making key investments and reforms in child immunizations, higher education, and research and development.

Cut Taxes for Working Families

- 1993 Plan - Expand EITC for 15 Million Working Families: President Clinton and Vice President Gore included a significant expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit in their economic plan to give a boost to working families who had struggled too long. The plan gave tax cuts to 15 million families, and the average family with two children received over $1,000.

- "I thought the Earned Income Tax Credit was the right direction because it helps people get off of welfare." [Speaker Newt Gingrich, Atlanta Journal & Constitution, 9/2/93]

- "One of the Clinton presidency's biggest accomplishments is also one of its least ballyhooed. We're talking about the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which may be as boring as it sounds but which also may have more beneficial impact on some of the neediest American families than anything the government has done in decades." [Black, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 10/16/1994]
Click to expand...

Seriously. Clinton did so much for the economy before the dotcom boom. I get tired of hearing Republicans saying Clinton's policies didn't impact the economy.
 
gkrykewy said:
First priority =/= primary purpose. Emergency vehicles have first priority on all public roadways, but that does not mean the primary purpose of all roadways is to carry emergency vehicles.
Click to expand...
Fun question: A city police car, a fire engine, an ambulance, and a post office van all meet at an intersection. Who has the right of way?
 
Has the LA Times endorsement been posted?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-endorse19-2008oct19,0,657833.story

We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.
Click to expand...


Very good read..
 
Hitokage said:
Fun question: A city police car, a fire engine, an ambulance, and a post office van all meet at an intersection. Who has the right of way?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming post office van because it is federally connected?
 
Hitokage said:
Fun question. A city police car, a fire engine, an ambulance, and a post office van all meet at an intersection. Who has the right of way?
Click to expand...

Hah! I'm not sure, actually. I think the police, fire, and medical vehicles would have equal rights of way, and would yield to one another as efficiently as they could. The postal vehicle doesn't have any rights over general traffic.

EDIT: Wow - well, you might be technically right, but there's no municipality or emergency official that would see it that way :lol
 
JayDubya said:
No, it is still its primary purpose. If needed the military has full priority over the IHS. We haven't exactly been invaded since 1956, but that is what the IHS was built for.

That it has other incidental benefits in its secondary / tertiary / etc. roles does not detract from that.
Click to expand...
There are many incidental benefits to regulating commerce of commodities such as health care between the states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I’m goin’ to Tokyo!
2
59
816
AGRacing replied
Waltzing With Brando (2025) Billy Zane, Joe Heder
6
273
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt replied
Post GIfs or short videos of the best 2D hand made animated sequences you can think of.
18
365
sono replied
Amazon is photoshopping Jame Bond's handguns out of all posters because hey...2025
2 3
108
206
EverydayBeast replied
  • Locked
Be careful where you get your news from
News 
47
3K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Top Bottom