Online Now 1199

The Barnyard

The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.

On this Board 55
Record: 486 (2/17/2013)

Online now 1193
Record: 9625 (10/8/2011)

Boards ▾

Palmetto Proving Grounds

The place for Gamecock talk, news and information

The Barnyard

The place for Gamecock football and recruiting talk, plus off-topic subjects.

The McGuire Room

The place for Gamecock basketball talk, news and information

The Sarge

The ultimate online destination for the latest scoop on Carolina's national power baseball program.

GCI Archives

Everything from Gamecock Insider Tony Morrell, in case you missed it.

Spurnotes Archives

The place to read all past editions of Spurnotes

Video Archive

Hall of Fame

The best of the best

Ticket Exchange

Buy and sell your Gamecock tickets here.

Test Forum

Feedback for TBS and 247Sports.

Reply

Halftime

  • less partisan divisiness? who are you kidding john?

    from the date obama got in office jim demint declared he was going to make health care obamas waterloo.

    obama came into office expecting something, what i am not sure. but if he expected the gop to help him out, it was a sad state of affairs

    the irony of all this is that obama has demonstrated an ability to thumb his nose at liberals on major issues. if the gop, instead of making it a napoleonic epic battle, had coopted obama, they couldve gotten big entitlement cuts.

    what is done is done. but there was no interest on either side for this issue, both had their drawbridges up. nothing can be done of consequence today in america...why is that one would ask? the majority of the people want some action...they are not getting it...in large part to tea party diehards with a vengence. my way or the highway

    all this contentiousness is unsettling to small pets. i wish it were over

    Aaron Burr Cock

  • Aaron Burr Cock said...

    are you the same guy who wanted to sue & call congressmen to get laws passed reducing liberty of stevecook or was that somebody else?

    make up your mind, big govt little govt or just the govt that suits you. i think you are steve cook personally

    I talked personally to Steve so thank you. Yes I believe every public place should be handicap accessible that is not taking away anybodys civil liberties. Do you believe women should be allowed to vote do you believe they're still should be slavery? All men were created equally and endowed by our creator. It's called equality.

    GamecockWorld

  • johnhunt said...

    Joe, don't take this the wrong way but you sound almost cavalier in your view towards bigger and more expensive government.

    He did not simply increase spending by a couple million - it's increased by several trillions! Part of the problem with deficit spending is the average Joe (no offense) has no clue of the amount of money being flittered away….it’s inconceivable.

    There was a time when a million dollars was considered an exorbitant amount - reference the scene from Austin Powers when Dr Evil attempts to extort a ransom of one million dollars from the world body so he will not use his “laser” to destroy parts of the planet….he gets laughed at….so he ups the ante to 100 billion – still a paltry sum by today’s deficit standard.

    The affordable healthcare bill – all well and good when touted in liberal and progressive sound bites and talking points – have you or anyone you know actually read all 2700 plus pages of the bill? Do you or any of your student peers know precisely what’s contained in the bill? You cite a couple of sources extolling the virtues of the plan – are these sources more sound, more cogent than those being presented by the opposition before the courts?

    “Mandates are not liked but they will lower the deficit, provide insurance to 30 million people, drive down medical costs, and require everyone to buy something that I'm sure you already buy anyway” – I believe you compared it to being required to purchase auto insurance. People who don’t own cars are not required to purchase auto insurance.

    It’s a bad thing because it was rushed through the democratic controlled congress probably out of fear that they will not be in control after the bill gets passed. Which turned out to be the case.

    It’s a bad thing because it does not apply to everyone equally – check your sources and see how many companies, many with union ties, are exempt from the mandates.

    It’s a bad thing because the majority of the people are against the bill as a whole. Had the wise men of fantasyland picked one or two items at a time to put forward I believe there would be far more acceptance and a lot less partisan divisiveness.

    I agreed in an earlier comment that I didn't like how it was presented and passed. It was presented as an all or nothing type deal, something I agree is problematic. It should have been much more carefully deliberated upon.

    The bill is supposed to decrease the deficit because it will almost eliminate the need for medicaid, so I fail to see the point about being costly.

    How should I take your lack of response towards my other defenses of Obama a few posts up? Health Care bill and a few other irresponsible programs notwithstanding, I think he has been a success as a president. He was given a very unfavorable situation upon taking office and has done the right thing in most regards.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • GamecockWorld said...

    I talked personally to Steve so thank you. Yes I believe every public place should be handicap accessible that is not taking away anybodys civil liberties. Do you believe women should be allowed to vote do you believe they're still should be slavery? All men were created equally and endowed by our creator. It's called equality.

    Then certainly you would regard Obama's ending of Don't Ask Don't Tell as a success in terms of expanding civil liberties?

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • No offense to anyone on this board, honestly, but DADT is all politics and way over blown. I am a proud member of the US Army it has changed nothing, not one bit. (through my observations) DADT was all political not about the Soldiers (Gay or Straight) at all.

    This post was edited by CayceCock on 4/4/2012 at 2:30 PM

    CayceCock

  • CayceCock said...

    No offense to anyone on this board, honestly, but DADT is all politics and way over blown. I am a proud member of the US Army it has changed nothing, not one bit. (through my observations) DADT was all political not about the Soldiers (Gay or Straight) at all.

    I agree, but wouldn't you agree the principle of it was the right thing? Essentially the old policy was it isn't ok, but no one is going to talk about it so don't bring it up. Even if the military was tolerant before, I would rather things just be cut and dry.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • GamecockWorld said...

    I talked personally to Steve so thank you. Yes I believe every public place should be handicap accessible that is not taking away anybodys civil liberties. Do you believe women should be allowed to vote do you believe they're still should be slavery? All men were created equally and endowed by our creator. It's called equality.

    you seem to be a big government first person. i cannot eat at stevecooks restaurant either, i feel my equality is offended. i want resolution

    Aaron Burr Cock

  • joetheogre said...

    Then certainly you would regard Obama's ending of Don't Ask Don't Tell as a success in terms of expanding civil liberties?

    DADT is moral issue and not a civil liberties issue if a gay man or lesbian in the military is not allowed to say if they are gay or not does not physically infringe on there lives.

    GamecockWorld

  • CayceCock said...

    would have been much better with out our joke of President

    the current president IS a joke. God help us if he gets four more years. If he does, it may be our country's "Final Four" years. That asshole liar will run us into the ground. Of course, I mean Assholerod.

    Surfside Cock

  • GamecockWorld said...

    DADT is moral issue and not a civil liberties issue if a gay man or lesbian in the military is not allowed to say if they are gay or not does not physically infringe on there lives.

    This is a backwards attitude. Black people being disenfrachised in the 50s did not directly affect their lives, yet it was still their right to vote.

    You went on a big rant about how everyone is created equally and is endowed be their creator. Does this somehow not apply to homosexuals because you personally take issue with it?

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • nm

    This post was edited by CayceCock on 4/4/2012 at 2:54 PM

    CayceCock

  • Surfside Cock said...

    the current president IS a joke. God help us if he gets four more years. If he does, it may be our country's "Final Four" years. That asshole liar will run us into the ground. Of course, I mean Assholerod.

    the sky is falling the sky is falling.

    your earnestness is clear. your issues less so. this pol obama is no better or worse than any number of prior presidents.

    pretending he is a radical perhaps makes you giddy but its tiresome

    Aaron Burr Cock

  • Aaron Burr Cock said...

    you seem to be a big government first person. i cannot eat at stevecooks restaurant either, i feel my equality is offended. i want resolution

    Now you are just being very facetious! Even Steve said when we talked on the phone he has lost business because his restaurant is not handicap accessible and that he wishes his restaurant was handicap accessible. I bet if you ask every business that is not handicap accessible they would say they wish it was. Plus that is not a intrusion own his business he would admit it would help his business if it was handicap accessible.

    GamecockWorld

  • joetheogre said...

    This is a backwards attitude. Black people being disenfrachised in the 50s did not directly affect their lives, yet it was still their right to vote.

    You went on a big rant about how everyone is created equally and is endowed be their creator. Does this somehow not apply to homosexuals because you personally take issue with it?

    You know I have gay and lesbian friends and everyone of them tell me that the ACLU have really hurt their causes with the way they go about it. Also the San francisco crowds have hurt their causes to.

    GamecockWorld

  • GamecockWorld said...

    You know I have gay and lesbian friends and everyone of them tell me that the ACLU have really hurt their causes with the way they go about it. Also the San francisco crowds have hurt their causes to.

    I don't disagree with that, but don't you consider letting them serve openly in the military a civil liberties success?

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • Aaron Burr Cock said...

    the sky is falling the sky is falling.

    your earnestness is clear. your issues less so. this pol obama is no better or worse than any number of prior presidents.

    pretending he is a radical perhaps makes you giddy but its tiresome

    this president has increased the federal deficit more in three years than all the presidents before him. Name one thing that O'slama has done good for this country. He's a community leader who thinks the government is the solution to everything. It is NOT. Green energy is a good thing to pursue for the future along with fossil fuels. Ours and the worlds economy is based on fossil fuels. You just don't deny drilling rights on federal lands. Windmills will help as will solar panels but how do you run cars and factories when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow? Those to options can help in a very small way to begin with but natural gas is the best alternative and O'slama doesn't even have a plan for that. The EPA has just shut down plans for 30 coal power plants. Coal plants are cleaner than ever. The EPA worries about air quality in the US. Air quality is a global problems. If we put restraints on our businesses in order to clean the air over the US, then the dirty air from China and India will fill the atmosphere and eventually be over our country and the EPA will say our companies are polluting the air. It's not like real estate where someone can say this is our property from the earth to the heavens. The earth rotates and so does the atmosphere.
    I'm tired of trying to explain things to people who are closed minded and mesmerized by the silver tongue liar.

    Surfside Cock

  • joetheogre said...

    I don't disagree with that, but don't you consider letting them serve openly in the military a civil liberties success?

    They were already serving openly ask any man or woman in the military if the new which person was gay they would know. The banner of DADT was way outed so the ending of DADT did nothing.

    GamecockWorld

  • GamecockWorld said...

    They were already serving openly ask any man or woman in the military if the new which person was gay they would know. The banner of DADT was way outed so the ending of DADT did nothing.

    So isn't it better to end this discrimination on paper? How would you feel in handicapped people technically weren't allowed to vote, but everyone kind of ignored it and let them do so anyway. Wouldn't you feel coming out and settling the issue would be best?

    This post was edited by joetheogre on 4/4/2012 at 3:54 PM

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • When the Right Wing invented the Individual Mandate.

    From that liberal rag, Forbes Magazine.

    How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate - Forbes

    Jim Taranto, who writes the Wall Street Journal column, put forth a lengthy and informative discussion yesterday on the conservative origins of the individual mandate, whose inclusion in Obamacare is today its most controversial feature on the Right.

    www.forbes.com
    signature image

    81 Alumnus

  • joetheogre said...

    So isn't it better to end this discrimination on paper? How would you feel in handicapped people technically weren't allowed to vote, but everyone kind of ignored it and let them do so anyway. Wouldn't you feel coming out and settling the issue would be best?

    You're talking apples and oranges with your liberal , ain’t it wonderful, johnny come lately view of gays in the military and equating that with disenfranchisement of blacks. Your giving credit to the O-man with that change in policy is misplaced…it is more a reflection of “changes “ in societal acceptance and not on presidential leadership.

    Sexual orientation is not a civil right or a civil liberty - there is no right to be openly gay - there is no right to be a man who wears women’s clothes - people will argue but there are choices with how someone dresses and who excites them in the shower. What you do in your home/bedroom is your business and not an issue for public scrutiny

    Straw man situations comparing handicapped people being prohibited from voting to sexual proclivity discrimination is ludicrous and nonsensical.

    Thirty years ago I was stationed at the Presidio in San Francisco - Don't ask, don't tell was not the prevailing policy then yet Gay soldiers "knew" to get themselves posted there.

    johnhunt

  • joetheogre said...

    Then certainly you would regard Obama's ending of Don't Ask Don't Tell as a success in terms of expanding civil liberties?

    The military doesn't operate based on soldiers civil liberties...come up with a better example. They have the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    maxcy124sc90

  • joetheogre said...

    The individual mandate was actually an idea of republicans to maintain the free market in health care. The thing with the health care bill is that you already pay for others to get it - in the form of higher costs. If everyone had the same access, people would get check ups instead of waiting until they need emergency surgery. So instead of paying half a million dollars for someone on welfare to have a costly surgery and rounds of intense chemotherapy, you can pay less for him to have periodic check ups and less intense treatment when a problem is detected. That is an extreme example, but whether you realize it or not you are essentially already paying for a universal health care system, except the one we have now costs more.

    Please don't take this the wrong way but I've read all of your posts and the problem is that you don't really understand the question. Obamacare is unconstitutional. The federal gov. has enumerated powers in the Constitution which are very specific.
    It really is irrelevant who already pays what to whom, etc...Let's be clear...if the federal government can mandate that individuals must purchase products as declared by whoever is in charge, office, etc...at the time....THEN WE HAVE NO RIGHTS...GAME OVER. We will not survive as a society...as a free men and women...over time...we will not be free. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? The Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of the government in insure INDIVIDUAL freedom...not individual healthcare, success, or enjoyment. When you give away your freedoms you must not think of the present...think 100, 200, 300 years ahead...WE MUST ALL DECIDE, SOON, WHAT IS OUR FREEDOM WORTH?

    maxcy124sc90

  • maxcy124sc90 said...

    Please don't take this the wrong way but I've read all of your posts and the problem is that you don't really understand the question. Obamacare is unconstitutional. The federal gov. has enumerated powers in the Constitution which are very specific. It really is irrelevant who already pays what to whom, etc...Let's be clear...if the federal government can mandate that individuals must purchase products as declared by whoever is in charge, office, etc...at the time....THEN WE HAVE NO RIGHTS...GAME OVER. We will not survive as a society...as a free men and women...over time...we will not be free. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS? The Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of the government in insure INDIVIDUAL freedom...not individual healthcare, success, or enjoyment. When you give away your freedoms you must not think of the present...think 100, 200, 300 years ahead...WE MUST ALL DECIDE, SOON, WHAT IS OUR FREEDOM WORTH?

    Actually, in making this argument, you make the most sense. From an economic or social context, the health care bill doesn't deserve the backlash it gets. If you want to make the argument that it is the principle of it, I think you would be justified in doing so.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • johnhunt said...

    You're talking apples and oranges with your liberal , ain’t it wonderful, johnny come lately view of gays in the military and equating that with disenfranchisement of blacks. Your giving credit to the O-man with that change in policy is misplaced…it is more a reflection of “changes “ in societal acceptance and not on presidential leadership.

    Sexual orientation is not a civil right or a civil liberty - there is no right to be openly gay - there is no right to be a man who wears women’s clothes - people will argue but there are choices with how someone dresses and who excites them in the shower. What you do in your home/bedroom is your business and not an issue for public scrutiny

    Straw man situations comparing handicapped people being prohibited from voting to sexual proclivity discrimination is ludicrous and nonsensical.

    Thirty years ago I was stationed at the Presidio in San Francisco - Don't ask, don't tell was not the prevailing policy then yet Gay soldiers "knew" to get themselves posted there.

    All I see is that a group of citizens that constituted about 10 million people are now allowed to openly served in the military when before they weren't. Before they did so in secrecy, causing either discomfort to the person who hid it or causing someone to not sign up altogether. Whether people on this board want will let themselves admit it or not, expanding the rights of people to serve is the definition of extending civil liberties.

    I think your opinion on this is a very outdated mode of thinking about the issue. Most Americans now agree that there is right to be openly gay. I have a hard time understanding the level of disdain towards that group. This is America, let people be free. I am more offended by stupid people marrying and choosing to reproduce. Gay people should have the same rights I do.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • maxcy124sc90 said...

    ................................... Obamacare is unconstitutional. The federal gov. has enumerated powers in the Constitution which are very specific. It really is irrelevant who already pays what to whom, etc...Let's be clear...if the federal government can mandate that individuals must purchase products as declared by whoever is in charge, office, etc...at the time....THEN WE HAVE NO RIGHTS...GAME OVER. We will not survive as a society...as a free men and women...over time...we will not be free.................................... DO YOU NOT

    I always take a poster extra seriously when he uses lots of capital letters, but based on your logic we haven't been free since 1792 when the federal government, led by President Washington, required all free white men to own a musket, with substantial fines if they didn't.

    And please don't give me the Second Amendment. It allow the ownership of firearms, a far cry from requiring it.

    The Militia Act of 1792

    http://constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

    constitution.org
    signature image

    81 Alumnus