Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

July 11, 2012 - Morning Headlines

- The House of Representatives will take up what is seen as a symbolic vote to repeal Obamacare today. If it passes, which is expected, it will surely die in the Senate (CNN):

- San Bernadino will be the second Californian city in as many months to declare bankrupcy (ABC News):

- President Obama and Mitt Romney have continually and will continue to spar over tax policy as campaigning ramps up (ABC News):

*** Be sure to vote in the weekly LME SCOTUS Obamacare Ruling poll on the left side of this blog ***


  1. Stuff like this is why there is such a strong belief that money breeds corruption in all levels of government:

    "Eva Rausing had tried to smuggle a small amount of crack cocaine and heroin into the U.S. Embassy in London, according to media reports at the time. Both she and her husband were arrested when police found more drugs at their house. The pair, however, avoided prosecution."

    It's an embarrassment to our court system that they were not prosecuted on any level for this.

    I definitely don't know all the details of the case, so I can't comfortably make any real assessments, but I have a hard time coming up with any realistic reasons as to how/why this got by that don’t involve the excessive wealth in any facet.

    1. I can't live in a world where people simply assume things. You've cited one of about 250 million reasons as to why they avoided prosecution. Your reason is based purely on speculation and assumption. Of course, with your slightly leftist leanings, you attack wealth and money. Why not focus on any other reason. Conservatives live in fact backed by truth. Liberals make assumptions.

    2. I’m pretty sure I made it clear that I was in fact making an assumption, and as such subvert to the fact that I could be wrong. Not sure why you’re chewing me out over what essentially amounts to merely expressing my opinion?

      And, I mean, you do realize that you just made assumptions as well?

      This is the idea of debate and having an open-forum. EVERYONE has to make assumptions to some degree; even when we site sources. When I site a source, whether it's a blog, news outlet, or a government database I am making an assumption that the data is accurate, unbiased, and factual.

      Do I personally know, 100% for certain, as to whether every aspect of it is completely accurate and without bias? Have I, personally, hand-picked and checked everything? No. Of course not.

      That said there’s a substantial difference between people that spout stuff as if everything they see/know/have an opinion on as fact, and someone simply stating their opinion.

      If you don’t like someone's assumptions, I more than welcome you to prove it wrong with fact. Otherwise I fail to see the difference here between us other than you don't like what I had to say.

    3. To elaborate further, this would be an example of a source that supports both your and my points, that may have done you better than just simply debacing and insulting my opinion with what amounts to nothing more than your opinion:

      My point being, in case it was missed, that money has in some cases bought unfair amounts of power/influence in a system that should not be effected by it.

    4. You seemed to take my opinion pretty harshly. It wasn't meant that way. I'm just saying that yes, you're assuming money was at play. Why go down that path? Why automatically jump on the path you did.

    5. Sorry if I took it harsher than you meant :) my misunderstanding.

      I jumped to the assumption money was at play because I, frankly, have never heard of such egregious circumstances involved in drug possession and no resulting prosecution. And I don’t say that as someone that doesn’t have any knowledge of law/our court systems/judicial history, as I know a fair amount from my family’s involvement in law (professionally of course!). Though, yeah, no formal education/experience at all (which plays into my admit of opinion).

      But it is incredibly surprising to me, to say the very least.

      I do recognize though, that I don’t exactly actively search for and follow cases like this, and that a headline like this is exactly part of sensationalism in the media, and that I don’t know the specifics of this case. So, I reserve making any real assessments aside from just my opinion... but like I said, I’d have trouble finding reasons for it to be otherwise.

      There’s very little that can get you off both drug possession (cocaine/heroine, no less) and sneaking drugs into an embassy of all places, no less.

      I'm not implying that they bought government officials, but I'm sure the amount of money they could throw at lawyers to find a way out of it gave them an advantage over the public defender.