Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Mitt Romney for President? Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-03-2012 07:31 PM
Blitzer Well fine, one last comment. Regarding your first point, I can't agree or disagree with that. I've never heard of Robert Draper or his assertions, but I have a high degree of skepticism about what you mentioned since I haven't seen it plastered on MSNBC or CNN, which I assume it would have been if true. Note, I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that I'll have to do some reading into that before I would want to comment. It sounds a little conspiracy theory-ish... Even if it were true, I'm 100% sure both sides fuck each other over as sport. I'm not giving either side a pass on being douches.

Well I'm 100% sure Republicans are NOT out to make it so no one can sue when they are maimed by a careless provider nor "want virtually no consumer protection". I think both those comments border on if not qualify for hyperbole. I do think they want to stop frivolous lawsuits as well as the current national pastime of lawsuits that is the United States. But taking it to say they don't want ANY lawsuits is not true.

And trust me, malpractice reform has immense impact on the current healthcare system and is largely not understood by those outside the field. I'm not saying you should take my word for it, but you shouldn't discount how much we do worrying about the 1/million case. Not how much we pay for malpractice and how it translates to higher bills for you. Nor how much we get pestered by attorneys with frivolous claims just to see if we will settle. Nor how broken the actual trial system is. And its broken on BOTH sides, for the injured patient and the innocent doctor.

But hey, we can agree on few things after all this. That's cool. Too bad our leaders can't find some common ground and do whats best of us all instead of whats best for the votes needed to extend their political careers--and thats a smack at ALL of them.

Separately, I'm gonna ask you a question (probably later 2nite or tomorrow when i get time) on your Cobra review forum. It won't be
10-03-2012 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Didn't think you were attacking but since your join date is Sep 2012, it was easy to assume that you have not truly been around on this particular forum long enough to get a feel for the personalities here and made a judgement call on the vitriol that is not entirely accurate.

I am not feeling dissed or attacked and my vitriolic nature is not based on emotional reaction so no worries and no need to boycott the thread ( although I am pleased you like my reviews). My tone here is more rhetoric than bite.

As for your questions, yes I did read the outline and I will agree with you that this thing was crammed through hastily. My feeling about that are this was a result of obstructionism by Republicans. Remember, Mitch McConnell did in fact hold that January 20, 2009 meeting where all of the House Republicans met and pledged to do every thing disruptive possible to "defeat Obama on everything" That is hardly bipartisan or even playing fair on the interest of serving the American people. I think the President rammed this through just to get "a foot in the door", something to tweak and improve later because he knew time was running short to get anything done. I blame the Republicans as much for this as I do him.

I do not really doubt the facts that you present here but doctors are like everyone else and they are also divided on the issues. I have friends in the medical profession and my back country splitboarding client is an ER doctor and he feels strongly that Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

Like I said, I really am a strong supporter of full single payer health care and thought that the logical path to this better system was to use the existing Medicare system and expand it to include all Americans....

At any rate, I am and was not offended or feeling attacked. I just wanted to address your points and assure you that my passion and vitriol are not even remotely the result of blind allegiance to any political party. On this we pretty much all agree on; they are both severely fucked up!! Until we end lobbying and get the obscene amounts of money out of politics, nothing good is ever going to come out of Washington.
You do realize that the reason Republicans became extremely childish and therefore obstructionists, was because the triple majority in charge became elitist and locked them out of the healthcare design meetings. They essentially would not let them participate, and then yes, the Republicans got very pissy about it. However I blame both sides for this not just one.

I assume that since you are for a single payer system, then you therefore must be for malpractice reform. One cannot exist without the other. You can't have a system where a payor dictates how medicine is practiced, and then when it doesn't go we'll, allow the provider who was just following the rules to get sued. Because that is happening now, and that's going to get worse as the government issues more mandates that directly affect medical practice.

A good case in point is the new "pay for satisfaction" initiative by the government. They will be restricting certain percentages of pay to hospitals and providers if they don't reach a certain high level of patient satisfaction. While this sounds good when you first hear of it, it isn't turning out so well. There was a large study that came out recently that looked at this very issue. What they found was that patients with extremely high levels of satisfaction with their healthcare, had a great number of unnecessary procedures and the complications that go with them, higher radiation exposure causing more cancer, and many more medication interactions/reactions. In other words, less satisfied patients had more appropriate treatment and did better. Why, because people are happier when you do what they want you to do, regardless of whether they need it or not. I believe it's called letting the tail wag the dog.

Yes and like your your doctor client, I am an ER doctor too, and initially thought this was a step in the right direction. Lately as more things are coming to light, it doesn't appear to be the case.

Nevertheless, I will be stepping out of this thread though no, I'm not boycotting it. It just personally would be pointless for me to get involved in discussing politics and health care issues in the very place that I come to get away from these things. So I will let you guys hack it out here, and I will step over to snowboard reviews and topics.
10-03-2012 04:23 PM
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Please do us all a favor and DO NOT engage Burton Avenger until you take time to understand who the guy is and learn to take him in context; you aren't ready for that yet.....
OMFG this had me rolling.
10-03-2012 03:24 PM
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Unless you also admit that tax cuts are also a form of spending, I disagree. Other than the bailouts which were approved before Obama took office, this President has been fiscally frugal.
Tax cuts are not spending. All spending is a form of taxation, even if it creates a deficit. Cutting taxes is not spending but what could be said is tax cuts without spending cuts don't do anything. Spending is what originates the need for taxation. So I'm not going to "admit" this because it's not true.

Modern comic theory basically falls into two schools of thought. On one side we have kinsey Economics which subscribes to trickle down supply side theory that we have dabled with for 30 years and it is an utter failure that has put us in this mess. On the other side we have the Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist's theories. Stated over simply, it is this theory that states that an economy is grown from the middle outward. By putting more money into the hands of the middle class, you stimulate the economy far more effectively through consumer spending. You could almost call this "Demand Side Economics".
Maynard James Keynes is essentially "demand side economics" which is what the majority of Krugman's work is based on. Hank Paulson (former Sec. of Treasury) and Tim Geithner and many other economists or economic editors subscribe to.

The other (major) school of thought is not based on "trickle down" but rather the function of the price mechanism in the free markets and the free allocation of resources in those markets by the price mechanism which is dictated by supply and demand. This would fall under what is most often referred to as the Austrian Economics, which was developed and emphasized by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Frederic Bastiat among others.

This increased spending and demand fuels production and creates job and massive economic activity.far more than redistribution of wealth to the ultra rich who typically offshore this wealth to places like the Caymen Islands...cough... Romney...cough! The theory of course is that when you subsidize the ultra rich they will reinvest in this country and stimulate economic growth. That money then "trickles down" through all socioeconomic levels to the benefit of all. Like Communism, it's a great theory that utterly falls apart in the real world.
Spending cannot happen without production. This is the fatal flaw of Keynesian economics. Your spending is the trading of your production for another's production. Part of the reason the rich don't want to invest in this country is because one, interest rates are far too low. Interest rates are the supply and demand of capital formation which comes from savings. Savings are negative. Interest rates should be through the rough. They are not because we have a fiat currency which we can just inflate and devalue controlled by The Federal Reserve. Fiat currency and central banking is a tenet of Keynesian economics; Keynesian economics assumes you can manipulate currency to better serve society rather than let the free markets set interest rates.

The Federal Reserve is a private banking organization controlled by FOREIGN PRIVATE AND CENTRAL BANKS. I believe private currency COULD work, in theory. I believe a government issued currency could work. Both types of currencies should be SOUND MONEY, they should be tied to some commodity like petroleum (probably not since exclusively that means OPEC could manipulate it too much), precious metals, other sound currencies like the Swiss franc etc.

The problem with this is it's not truly a private currency or a government issued currency. It's a government enforced monopoly of a single private currency. This is obviously vulnerable to being rift with corruption. In fact, I think the people who believe it is NOT corrupt are the ones wearing tinfoil hats.

I'm not going to address the rest of what is being discussed because it would be counter-productive. If you believe spending and consumption are the keys to how an economy works, then we are simply going to disagree.
10-03-2012 02:03 PM
Originally Posted by pdxrealtor View Post
What do you have against wealthy people who have never labored a day in their life? Why should they pay more taxes? Why shouldn't they pay a lower tax rate? The taxes they pay in one year are more than you or I pay in 10.
Why should someone of the middle class be taxed more that someone in the poor class? The same argument can be made that a family making 90k a year pays about 22% in taxes ($20000), while a family making 30k a year pays about 12% in taxes ($3600).

I hear the argument for the extremely wealthy not paying taxes a lot. Everyone wants to throw out the "why should the be punished with higher taxes because they're more successful". To that I say, middle class Americans are more successful than lower class, and yet they are burdened with a higher tax rate. Why does the argument work for on behalf of the rich, but not for the middle class.

I wish they'd just go to a flat tax regardless of marital status on all income and do away with an annual tax. No more deductions, no more lower/middle/rich class. Just a flat 10% a year per household.

Originally Posted by pdxrealtor View Post
And another thing while we're talking taxes.... why are elderly on social security paying taxes on money they've already been taxed on? Death tax? What the fuck is that all about?? It's my money, I paid my taxes on it... why do I now have to be taxed again?
Can't argue with you on this. Totally agree.
10-03-2012 01:24 PM
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Before I respond to this, I want you all to know that I ride with this guy and consider him a friend. I say this to show that my political beliefs do not interfere with my snowboarding relationships with anyone on this board.....

That's why we get along brother.... because we can agree to disagree and not let it effect us like little babies.

Now it is my turn to say, "I can`t believe what I am reading". This statement is way beneath your intelligence level and not in character of what I know about you. This to me smacks of empty rhetorical nationalism. Whether we as Americans agree on issues or not, dissent is fundamentally American and the highest form of patriotism. People like myself who are passionate about what we feel is a bad direction our country is headed have a patriotic duty to voice our concerns and do everything in our power to try to change it. I would say the exact same thing about you guys on the right when you do the same. I may disagree with your agenda, but it is very American for you to pursue it and would NEVER suggest ANYONE leave the country they love because they disagree with my point of view.

The statement I made about go to Europe might have sounded harsh and I should have been clearer. Here's why I said it. We are very divided as country right now, not right or left, but big government take care of me, protect me or government get out of my way I can take care of myself, and if I CHOOSE to, I can take care of others. Europe is big government. That's all I meant by it. If someone is so passionate about becoming more like Europe.... why not just go there? You mention issues.... I'm talking fundamental change, and so is the current president. Let's get our core USA back and then start working on getting back to the days when shit was built here, built to last etc...

Uh oh, here we go again. Sounds to me as if you are buying into this "47%" rhetoric from Romney. While there is undoubtedly a SMALL percentage of people eho are worthless freeloading bums, I do not in a million years subscribe to this opinion about my fellow Americans. Many of these people that are being demonized by the right and belong to Romney`s infamous 47% are not bums with no drive. They are students struggling to make it through college and work their asses off in very low paying jobs and have major expenses so that their tax bracket simply is such that they do not owe any federal income taxes. Many are elderly on Social Security which has never been taxed and these people paid into the system all of their working lives. Many are disable veterans who paid the ultimate sacrifice (short of death) to serve their country and now are on disability. I am truly horrified by this callous attitude coming from the elitist pigs like Romney who never labored a day in his privileged life.

Honestly, I threw those numbers out as an example. These guys start talking numbers and I just tune them out.

What do you have against wealthy people who have never labored a day in their life? Why should they pay more taxes? Why shouldn't they pay a lower tax rate? The taxes they pay in one year are more than you or I pay in 10. And another thing while we're talking taxes.... why are elderly on social security paying taxes on money they've already been taxed on? Death tax? What the fuck is that all about?? It's my money, I paid my taxes on it... why do I now have to be taxed again?

This is an argument that has gone on for a long time and actually has it`s roots before Clinton. Many blame Carter for example. The truth of the matter in my opinion has its roots in flaws in the Fair Housing Act which began during the Nixon administration then was changed to the Community Reinvestment Act. Both of which were never intended to manipulate the real estate markets in the manner that has happened. Originally these acts were passed and subsequently renewed and revised to address the racial inequality on the part of lenders who were actively disfranchising black folk. This issue is a bipartisan one and Republicans were just as eager to inflate home ownership numbers as Democrats. This is a red herring straw man argument in my opinion.

You are very educated and obviously have passion for what seems to be a bit of politics and a bit of history. Much more than me.

By the way...

I threw that last statement about Raines in to see who, if anyone, would say exactly what you said. You are right.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

10-03-2012 12:55 PM
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Typically, the middle class, but this term "working class" I think more accurately describes most Americans since many hard working Americans typically do not earn enough to be in the Middle Class. The most accurate term is actually the Prolatariat.....

As for the "non working class" I did not say that, you did. I would use the term "Elite Class" or Capitalists. I refer to people like Romney who pay 14% tax on money that is acquired not by earning it through physical or intelectual labor which is taxed as high as 43%, but rather from interest and dividends on amassed wealth which the receive while sitting on their fat, pampered asses producing nothing for their country. In Romney's case, inherited wealth. This spoiled, arrogant prick was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and never labored a day in his privileged, pampered life. Then this egotistical, condescending, sanctimonious pile of human detritus has the unmitigated gall to lecture us who work for a living about "taking personal responsibility" and makes his pompous remarks about the 47% who are so poor or elderly or disabled that they pay no federal income tax.

Some of these people that this fucking son of a bitch is denigrating are soldiers who have had their body parts blown off serving in a war for corporate scumbags like him; who are living on SSI and disability. My feelings about Romney are that the sooner he has total fucking mental breakdown and puts the barrel of a shotgun in his mouth and pulls the trigger; speeding him on his way to the planet Kolob where all these stupid fucking Mormons believe "God" lives, the better.

This mother fucking pile of shit got a $77,000.00 taxe write off for a fucking dancing horse. That is more money than most Americans make in a year working their asses off. Fuck Romney! Anyone not a millionaire who stands to profit from his Republican economic strategies of redistribution of wealth to the top who votes for this douche bag is a fucking idiot. Those who do for "religious freedom issues" are even more fucking stupid! Does anyone really believe that a Mormon bishop who has had millions in campaign donations from the cult, will really honor the concept of separation of church and state? The only thing dumber than the Mormons are the Catholics. These mother fuckers who had a direct hand in the extermination of 6 million skews want to now cry about their religious freedoms being infringed upon by Obamacare? Give me a fucking break!

As for your previous questions, I,ll get around to it. It would have made it easier had you not embedded them in your quote of my post; now I have to try to edit them out and pasted in a new post.
I really want to keep my reply civil but it appears you have no such respect for people of a different mindset. Where is this acceptance?

Your replies and countless others have helped me realize that most people use words for their emotional impact rather than for their meaning.

eg - If you don't think like the "tolerant" people then you are a "bigot". Because holding a conservative view of sex, marriage and life is linguistically and historically equivalent to slavery, mob lynchings and the like.

The emotional value of your word selectino is utilized to shut me up and get others to ignore my point of view, to invalidate my right to an opinion and to discredit any credence in my position from the start.

No one is required to entertain the thoughts of bigots or the brainless, because we all know bigots are hateful unreasonable people.

This is why discussions are so difficult on the interwebz, people want bumper sticker slogans and empty, yet powerful words, to get a stranglehold on truth/democracy/etc.

So, help me understand your position a little better.

1st: Who did the Catholics attempt to exterminate?
2nd: Why would historical transgressions eliminate anyone's right to religious freedom?
10-03-2012 12:47 PM
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Not "my man", just the "lesser of two evils" in my book.....

As for your assertions on this, I am inclined to trust to your expertise as a result of your profession and the type of properties you typically deal with.....

I would however like to see some of the source material for my own education in this matter. One thing that I am struggling with though is exactly how the Obama administration or any administration accomplished this act of market manipulation. To me this seems to defy logic since most banking and financial entities seem to be adamantly opposed to President Obama and his policies. Wouldn't it make more sense to artificially make things seem worse than they are in order to fuel up more discontent with this President?.....
I know there is a lot of data available to the public on

The information I have is not based on source material or tons of reading, but more from just being involved in the industry. Interacting with people and companies both on forums, in person, and via email. This over a period of years.

The word right now is nothing is going to happen until after the election.

Why is that?

There's pressure coming from somewhere in Washington. It would only make sense that it's to make things appear better than they are.

The media isn't shy about reporting how great the housing market is doing. Very rarely do I hear someone mention the underlying issues that will plague the market for years to come, but I do hear it occasionally.

And why would someone want things to look better than they are in an election year?
10-03-2012 10:39 AM
Originally Posted by backstop13 View Post
...and the fact that the booze you buy in Canada is about twice the price.

Backstop for Prime Minister!
10-03-2012 10:01 AM
Blitzer Snowolf, I wasn't attacking you or even talking to you specifically. I'm also pretty sure that the rarity of my posting does nothing to unvalidate my opinion, just as posting incessantly doesn't validate other people's opinion. I was just saying that people should chill out with the "Vote for -insert name- or you are a dumbass" OR the lovely "if you vote for -insert name- then the US will turn into chaos." It seems people do this every election cycle and it gets old.

As far as the economy goes, it is waaay more complicated than being Bush's fault. I think too much blame is put on both Bush and Obama, but since they were/are at the highest spot, they get the blame. Plus it plays well for people who learn how to think by watching MSNBC/FOXNEWS/Comedy Central.

Regarding healthcare, come on. What did you read? The full 2000 page Healthcare Act or an outline of it? Even if you had, do you understand the current system enough to anticipate the domino effect of many of the major changes? Do you understand what is happening due to the already implemented minor changes? No, you don't. I am a professional in this field so I see these effects daily. I have been to national lectures by people who are high up in government, and they even freely admit that no one really understands what is going to happen. So don't even pretend that YOU sir, have read and understand it.

BTW, don't assume I'm against Obama (or for Romney). I had high hopes the last four years, and was blown away with how this ACA was speed written, not vetted, and crammed through congress just so those involved could get their legacy. Obama & crew also promised the AMA that in return for their support, he would make sure malpractice reform was a part of the bill. I guess he must have forgotten, OR the trial lawyers threatened to stop funding the Democrats decide. It's great to know lawyers had more input in this ACA than medical professionals did. Healthcare is going to be LESS affordable with the new changes. Hospitals are already cutting back staffing and national ER wait times are rising. And it's just beginning ;(.

Anyways, not trying to diss you Snowolf. I wasn't addressing you personally until you called me out. Now I'm leaving this forum thread and going to re-read your Cobra review. Btw, I dig your reviews
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome