or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's Joint Session on Healthcare
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's Joint Session on Healthcare - Page 4

post #121 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

You believe that corporations should have complete control over your life. They should tell you what to eat and which doctor to go to and when and how much treatment you are allowed to receive. This is the current system. The problem with this is that once a corporation has eliminated it's competition by i.e. purchasing other competing corps or simply out marketing them, you will have what's generally known as "corporate takeover of health care." This is described in a myriad of scifi books. The corp is then free to set it's own standards with maximized profit in mind. When they say "I want my country back" they mean bring back the rule of the slave owner. Keep the working people sick and poor, disallow abortions so there will be more of them to exploit, let them die early from lack of care and maximize profit for the few.

Joe Wilson's only bill he ever brought forth would bar emergency rooms from treating illegal aliens. Now that is pure anti christian, anti American and anti humanitarian fascism. Obama can learn a lot from him.

Oh one more thing:
Republican health care reform and illegal aliens

Oh and this:
un funded medicare overhaul
This costs 1.2 trillion but no one demonstrated, or had any problem with it, it uses tax $ for illegal aliens and lots more. It was passed because the Bush admin lied again. WTF?

Stink. They don't even have to buy smaller insurance companies to take over healthcare. All you need to do is to serve in the board of other companies and trading votes for concessions to your own company. In other words, vote fixing and creating a virtual monopoly while giving the appearance of "free market".

Look, healthcare is not a business. Never was, never will be. Every wealthy country in the world has universal healthcare instituted by their governments and every poor country wants to get it. Hell, even developing countries like Mexico and Brazil has it (and several others). It works wonders, it gives better quality of life than the USA and it costs half as much or less.

Because americans are, as a society, paranoid. Yes, PARANOID. The plan here is not to wipe out insurance companies (which would be the ideal solution), but to merely add a public option. It is, in every sense, already a watered down reform. And yet the nutjobs here call it "government takeover". It is crazy, it is paranoia. It defies logic reasoning. Another reason for this resistance to reform is because americans are largely ignorant of other countries and other cultures. If they were knowledgeable about the rest of the world they would see that other countries like european countries, Japan, etc, are not latent communists or inferior. They would be open to ideas such as universal healthcare.
post #122 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Yeah, that's gonna happen. What fantasy world do you live in?


In the fantasy world that this is the greatest democracy on Earth and anybody can read the bill online and governments are held accountable by their people.
post #123 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

In the fantasy world that...governments are held accountable by their people.

Ohhhh...I'd like to live there some day too. Sadly I live in the United States right now.
post #124 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Ohhhh...I'd like to live there some day too. Sadly I live in the United States right now.

Too bad it didn't happen during the last administration huh?

Oh! But the Republicans became unpopular and lost the election and we're in a liberal part of the cycle now!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #125 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

...we're in a liberal part of the cycle now!

When do you suppose we might be in the "liberty part of the cycle"?
post #126 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Stink. They don't even have to buy smaller insurance companies to take over healthcare. All you need to do is to serve in the board of other companies and trading votes for concessions to your own company. In other words, vote fixing and creating a virtual monopoly while giving the appearance of "free market".

Look, healthcare is not a business. Never was, never will be. Every wealthy country in the world has universal healthcare instituted by their governments and every poor country wants to get it. Hell, even developing countries like Mexico and Brazil has it (and several others). It works wonders, it gives better quality of life than the USA and it costs half as much or less.

Because americans are, as a society, paranoid. Yes, PARANOID. The plan here is not to wipe out insurance companies (which would be the ideal solution), but to merely add a public option. It is, in every sense, already a watered down reform. And yet the nutjobs here call it "government takeover". It is crazy, it is paranoia. It defies logic reasoning. Another reason for this resistance to reform is because americans are largely ignorant of other countries and other cultures. If they were knowledgeable about the rest of the world they would see that other countries like european countries, Japan, etc, are not latent communists or inferior. They would be open to ideas such as universal healthcare.

So true and so sad.
I am sure there are problems within European systems but I have never heard anyone complain and I do a lot of business in Germany. They do like to party on their 6 week paid vacations.
post #127 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No, the Democrat establishment is trying to make a comparative handful of outspoken people who call themselves conservatives look stupid and portray them as representative of conservatives as a whole, hoping to discredit them and show the world how insignificant and marginalized they are. This is backfiring. Most Americans are very reasonable, rational people who work hard and just want the best for their families. Painting the majority of them as "stupid radicals" probably won't sit well with them in the long-run.

You seem to be implying here that the majority of Americans are conservative Republicans, which I don't believe is even close to reality.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #128 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

When do you suppose we might be in the "liberty part of the cycle"?

In politics there's only yin and yang like most things in this universe. Liberal or conservative.

However since Liberal is a derivative of Liberty I'd say we're in that part of the cycle right now.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #129 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

In politics there's only yin and yang like most things in this universe. Liberal or conservative.

However since Liberal is a derivative of Liberty I'd say we're in that part of the cycle right now.

I actually meant liberty. Do you know what that means? Do you know what the opposite of liberty actually is?

We can go with "liberal" but only in the true sense of that word, not in the modern Barack Obama/Ted Kennedy/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/etc. sense of it which appears to actually mean not-liberal.
post #130 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

You seem to be implying here that the majority of Americans are conservative Republicans, which I don't believe is even close to reality.

The majority consider themselves conservatives or moderates, yes. I don't believe I said anything about party affiliation.

Gallup: “Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

Gallup: Conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, but not D.C.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #131 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I actually meant liberty. Do you know what that means? Do you know what the opposite of liberty actually is?

We can go with "liberal" but only in the true sense of that word, not in the modern Barack Obama/Ted Kennedy/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/etc. sense of it which appears to actually mean not-liberal.

Oh so now your defining things for the world?

Liberty means freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

Quote:
Liberty is a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the right to act according to his or her own will.

Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the individual from outside compulsion or coercion.

And I.S. what we have here is more people practicing their free will than the minority which seeks to tell them what freedom really means by coercion or volume making up for their lack of numbers or facts.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #132 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh so now your defining things for the world?

No.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Liberty means freedom.

Indeed it does.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And I.S. what we have here is more people practicing their free will than the minority which seeks to tell them what freedom really means by coercion or volume making up for their lack of numbers or facts.

Actually what we have is executive and legislative branches (not all that differently from the previous ones) who are in the business of restricting liberty and actively engaging in coercion in various forms. Indeed there is a minority in Washington, D.C. who, perhaps at the will of a majority in the country, seek to utilize the tactics of restriction, coercion, force and the threat of violence to accomplish their goals.
post #133 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

No.




Indeed it does.




Actually what we have is executive and legislative branches (not all that differently from the previous ones) who are in the business of actually restricting liberty and actively engaging in coercion in various forms. Indeed there is a minority in Washington, D.C. who, perhaps at the will of a majority in the country, seek to utilize the tactics of restriction, coercion, force and the threat of violence to accomplish their goals.

The majority voted them in. That's the way this country works in case you didn't notice. Sorry if that doesn't sit well but there are plenty of one sided mnonarchies or dictatorships you could move to.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #134 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The majority voted them in. That's the way this country works in case you didn't notice. Sorry if that doesn't sit well but there are plenty of one sided mnonarchies or dictatorships you could move to.

Here again you side step reasoning and avoid any quest for what might be right or wrong, good or bad, true or false to seek shelter behind the majority wishes and opinions.
post #135 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Here again you side step reasoning and avoid any quest for what might be right or wrong, good or bad, true or false to seek shelter behind the majority wishes and opinions.

Ok. I think the liberal left is more than often more " right " than the conservative right is. Prove me wrong if you can.

However it doesn't change the nature of our country's election process. If you don't like it when the liberals win and are in control then by all means move.

I didn't like it under Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 or 2 but I think this is the best way of doing things. The most supportive of invidual freedom or " Liberty ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #136 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ok. I think the liberal left is more than often more " right " than the conservative right is. Prove me wrong if you can.

Well, there we'd need to discuss specific issues.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

However it doesn't change the nature of our country's election process.

Actually, we're not a "democracy" as you're so fond of claiming, we're a constitutional federal republic with some democratic representation. These word each mean things.

Constitutional in particular means the people and the elected officials are constrained by a written constitution and cannot do whatever they wish. In the U.S. constitution the roles, responsibilities of the federal government are to be quite limited and constrained.

In essence we are governed (and the people and those they elect are constrained), ultimately, by the constitution.

That we are a federal republic means that the states are sovereign entities (which is strongly implied* in the 10th amendment of the U.S. constitution) and are not merely subsidiary political entities of a national government. In other words states have rights that protect them against actions by the federal government.

In fact, one of the reasons we do have a written constitution is so that we can all (majority and minority) be confident that our rights are protected. We can also be confident that no matter who gets elected, their powers are pretty seriously limited, so that when, hypothetically, the executive and legislative branches get together and decide to, I don't know, buy an automobile company...or an insurance company...or a couple of mortgage lenders...we can all go..."Huh...I don't recall that being in the constitution. Let me go check....sure enough...there ain't nothing in there about buying car companies or insurance companies or mortgage lenders." Or, if some of their friends in the banking and finance business got themselves into trouble, they decide that they can go take a few hundred billion dollars from "we the people" to give to them. Again we can all go..."Huh...I don't recall that being in the constitution!" Or if they decide they want to take over the health care system. Or if they decide to hand out a couple of billion dollars to people to turn their cars into scrap metal. Or...or...or...we can all go..."Huh...I don't recall that being in the constitution!" And we'd be right, and we could say, "Hey, stop that now."

Or if the President decides he wants to just go off and start wars whenever he's in the mood, we can all look at our constitution and say..."Ummm...I'm pretty sure that Congress has to actually, you know, declare war before you do that kind of thing."

This brief civics lesson is over, you'll have to do the rest of the work yourself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If you don't like it when the liberals win and are in control then by all means move.

Ah, I thought "America: Love it or leave it!" was conservative Republican slogan?!?
post #137 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I actually meant liberty. Do you know what that means? Do you know what the opposite of liberty actually is?

So...you're saying we're not in the liberty cycle because Obama's jackbooted thugs are using mind control rays on us?

Quote:
We can go with "liberal" but only in the true sense of that word, not in the modern Barack Obama/Ted Kennedy/Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/etc. sense of it which appears to actually mean not-liberal.

Yah, because real liberals consider these folks either moderates or conservatives...
post #138 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Actually, we're not a "democracy" as you're so fond of claiming, we're a constitutional federal republic with some democratic representation. These word each mean things.

Which has what to do with how much less liberty we have because we freely elected representatives that are from the Democratic party and not the Republican one?


Quote:
Ah, I thought "America: Love it or leave it!" was conservative Republican slogan?!?

It's called "hoist with one's own petard".
post #139 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

So...you're saying we're not in the liberty cycle because Obama's jackbooted thugs are using mind control rays on us?

No.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yah, because real liberals consider these folks either moderates or conservatives...

So you are saying that the people I mentioned are not real liberals? If not them, who?


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Which has what to do with how much less liberty we have because we freely elected representatives that are from the Democratic party and not the Republican one?

No.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

It's called "hoist with one's own petard".

Oh. I thought it was called hypocrisy.
post #140 of 190
Quote:
Well, agree or not do you have demographic data that show where the people who are asking for this information are actually geographically located to make your assertions hold water? I don't, so if you do it would go a long way to convincing me of your point.

Would a Research 2000 poll conducted in July that showed a 20-point regional variation in "birther" beliefs suffice?

"Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?"

Northeast
Yes - 93%
No - 4%
Not Sure - 3%

South
Yes - 47% (-46)
No - 28 (+24)
Not Sure - 30 (+27)

Midwest
Yes - 90%
No - 6%
Not Sure - 4%

West
Yes - 87%
No - 6%
Not Sure - 6%

Quote:
I have looked around a bit more and found this page:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_a_certi...cate_in_Hawaii
I would have to agree with you on this point. The birthers appear to be wrong about that.

This is why it is important to not rely on shitty sources.

It is infuriating that you respond with a Valley Girl "whatever" to criticism of Newsmax after parroting a falsehood because you read it at a right-wing source of information.

"So, like, whatever if I've already gotten something wrong specifically because I got it from a blatantly partisan source, it's, like, just fine and stuff and has absolutely no implication about any future information I might receive from the same types of sources."

You literally said "whatever"... Jesus Harold Christ.

Quote:
Hawaii will not happily provide anyone with anyone's birth certificate but their own.

Ah, I misremembered. Thanks for correcting me.

Regardless, there is no evidence that Hawaiian officials are lying or engaging in a cover up. There is no reason to disbelieve the state officials whose job it is to verify birth records.

Quote:
The original birth certificate has more information on it, thus it is a long form rather than the shorter Certification, or reprint birth certificate. As a parent who has 3 children, I received an original birth certificate for each of them. I do not live in Hawaii, but I would assume that this is the same there as well.

An assumption:
1 - That because something happened a certain way in your area it must have happened the same way in the areas of others.
2 - That because something happened a certain way in your time it must have happened the same way in the times of others.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #141 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Would a Research 2000 poll conducted in July that showed a 20-point regional variation in "birther" beliefs suffice?

Interesting poll. It does appear that the belief that he is not born in the United States is more prevalent in the south according to that survey. It is not a fully damning evidence of racism by itself but it is what I asked you for and lends evidence to your theory. Thanks.

Quote:
It is infuriating that you respond with a Valley Girl "whatever" to criticism of Newsmax after parroting a falsehood because you read it at a right-wing source of information.

"So, like, whatever if I've already gotten something wrong specifically because I got it from a blatantly partisan source, it's, like, just fine and stuff and has absolutely no implication about any future information I might receive from the same types of sources."

You literally said "whatever"... Jesus Harold Christ.

That whatever was not linked to the falsehood that you are referring to here. It was referring to 'I am glad that there was laughter in the room, because the "birther" movement deserves nothing but scornful laughter, derision, and mockery. " But I understand why it made you angry. I actually have been trying much harder to not be dismissive in my posts, I have a ways to go on that mark.

Quote:
Ah, I misremembered. Thanks for correcting me.

No biggie really, if they had flown to Hawaii and gotten them to show them Obamas Birth Certificate that would have been a huge issue.

Quote:
Regardless, there is no evidence that Hawaiian officials are lying or engaging in a cover up. There is no reason to disbelieve the state officials whose job it is to verify birth records.

I would tend to agree with you on this point.

Quote:
An assumption:
1 - That because something happened a certain way in your area it must have happened the same way in the areas of others.
2 - That because something happened a certain way in your time it must have happened the same way in the times of others.

Option 1 is a fairly safe assumption as most things have been standardized for a while now even across states.

Option 2, not as safe an assumption. Much of the reading I have done shows that things were not as standardized or even close to similar the further back you go.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #142 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Option 1 is a fairly safe assumption as most things have been standardized for a while now even across states.

Option 2, not as safe an assumption. Much of the reading I have done shows that things were not as standardized or even close to similar the further back you go.

The "for a while now" and "further" is not nearly as long ago as you might think. Remember that mortgage discrimination wasn't curtailed until 1975 with the home mortgage disclosure act where it could be tracked if a mortgage company was discriminating racially.

I don't think it is controversial to say that these policies and practices were geographically biased.
post #143 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Well, there we'd need to discuss specific issues.




Actually, we're not a "democracy" as you're so fond of claiming, we're a constitutional federal republic with some democratic representation. These word each mean things.

Constitutional in particular means the people and the elected officials are constrained by a written constitution and cannot do whatever they wish. In the U.S. constitution the roles, responsibilities of the federal government are to be quite limited and constrained.

In essence we are governed (and the people and those they elect are constrained), ultimately, by the constitution.

That we are a federal republic means that the states are sovereign entities (which is strongly implied* in the 10th amendment of the U.S. constitution) and are not merely subsidiary political entities of a national government. In other words states have rights that protect them against actions by the federal government.

In fact, one of the reasons we do have a written constitution is so that we can all (majority and minority) be confident that our rights are protected. We can also be confident that no matter who gets elected, their powers are pretty seriously limited, so that when, hypothetically, the executive and legislative branches get together and decide to, I don't know, buy an automobile company...or an insurance company...or a couple of mortgage lenders...we can all go..."Huh...I don't recall that being in the constitution. Let me go check....sure enough...there ain't nothing in there about buying car companies or insurance companies or mortgage lenders." Or, if some of their friends in the banking and finance business got themselves into trouble, they decide that they can go take a few hundred billion dollars from "we the people" to give to them. Again we can all go..."Huh...I don't recall that being in the constitution!" Or if they decide they want to take over the health care system. Or if they decide to hand out a couple of billion dollars to people to turn their cars into scrap metal. Or...or...or...we can all go..."Huh...I don't recall that being in the constitution!" And we'd be right, and we could say, "Hey, stop that now."

Or if the President decides he wants to just go off and start wars whenever he's in the mood, we can all look at our constitution and say..."Ummm...I'm pretty sure that Congress has to actually, you know, declare war before you do that kind of thing."

This brief civics lesson is over, you'll have to do the rest of the work yourself.




Ah, I thought "America: Love it or leave it!" was conservative Republican slogan?!?

Funny how times change isn't it? Or what's ok for conservatives to use isn't for liberals?

The rest is just heavily laced with partisan opinion.

Bush was about as bad as it gets without a dictatorship. That's really the bottom line. Comparing this situation to the Bush years is rediculous. I don't really like the idea of government moving more and more into our lives but as far as insurance goes the private sector's kind of made a mess of things haven't they? The type of goverment moving into our lives that bothers me more however is the right for the goverment to wiretap anyone's phone on a whim. For any reason. That's going way too far. That kind of thing clearly illustrates the difference between these 2 situations.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #144 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Or what's ok for conservatives to use isn't for liberals?

I don't think it is OK for anyone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The rest is just heavily laced with partisan opinion.

This appears to be your standard response for thing you either don't like, agree with or understand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Bush was about as bad as it gets without a dictatorship.

Perhaps. So? Why is it that your standard responses seem to boil things down into Bush vs. Obama, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican? This seems to be rather binary thinking. It suggests that there are only two possible views of everything and that everyone must fit into the boxes you've created. If someone is criticizing Obama, then let's talk about how bad Bush was. As if Obama is objectively or absolutely good and right because he's better than Bush.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Comparing this situation to the Bush years is rediculous.

Then stop doing it. I'm not doing this comparison. You are the one (among others here) that resorts to "But Bush was bad!" anytime anyone criticizes the current administration. Or assumes that anyone the criticizes the current administration must be a) conservative, b) Republican, c) a Bush supporter, d) voted for Bush, e) wanted McCain instead, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I don't really like the idea of government moving more and more into our lives but as far as insurance goes the private sector's kind of made a mess of things haven't they?

You're ignoring how government's current involvement has made a mess of things. Have insurance companies been co-conspirators? Absolutely! But they've been able to get away with it because the government is their partner. That's the key point that many seem to ignore or forget.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The type of goverment moving into our lives that bothers me more however is the right for the goverment to wiretap anyone's phone on a whim. For any reason. That's going way too far.

I agree and Barack Obama, with the Democratic majority, should immediately rescind any and all laws and regulations and that permit this in any way.
post #145 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

I agree and Barack Obama, with the Democratic majority, should immediately rescind any and all laws and regulations and that permit this in any way.

Would it be in the Constitution that the president can just rescind laws at will?
post #146 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

Would it be in the Constitution that the president can just rescind laws at will?

Did you miss the part where he does it with the democratic majority? Hence, congress?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #147 of 190
Thread Starter 
Interesting.
post #148 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Interesting.

What's really interesting is I don't remember any of these independent, conservatives, who aren't republican whining about a republican majority just a few years ago.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #149 of 190
Guess what?
I just got a new job!
It's a great job with some really cool benefits.
The guy who had the job before me is no longer here and I'm just moving into his office.
I'm being updated on what's pending and what's going on right now.
What's that?
We owe how much? That's a lot of money.
And what's broken? Oh. I knew that already.
How much is it going to cost? Hmm.
What's that noise out there?
What? People are angry with me? For what?
For causing this mess? What do you mean?
I just got here.
I'm being blamed for what? For causing all this?
Are you serious?
I just got here.
Did you hear me?
I said, I just got here.
So let me get this straight.
I'm being blamed for all these problems that the previous person in this position caused or made worse. Am I understanding this right?
I remember saying in my interview that I would do my best to fix the problems at the time.
Which I intend to do. But people have to work with me to do this. I'll try to get everyone involved. We can get this solved together. As a team. Right?

So, who's with me?
post #150 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by involuntary_serf View Post

Ohhhh...I'd like to live there some day too. Sadly I live in the United States right now.

I know. I live in the United States too. I really wish we had a real democracy here. Apparently getting elected by a majority isn't really a democracy when the a fringe minority group can completely derail everything before you even get a chance to fucking try.

Oh well.

I can wish can't I?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #151 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

I know. I live in the United States too. I really wish we had a real democracy here. Apparently getting elected by a majority isn't really a democracy when the a fringe minority group can completely derail everything before you even get a chance to fucking try.

Oh well.

I can wish can't I?

Yes, the democratic process is broken. But I am optimistic. I am willing to believe that the US is still adapting to the internet era, when reality becomes easily distorted and noise obfuscate truth. On top of it all we have Fox Noise channel spinning into oblivion any legitimate discourse in the nation. Perhaps in the future that cancer will self-destruct and we can go back to fixing broken healthcare, broken finance, broken climate policy, broken government.
post #152 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Yes, the democratic process is broken. But I am optimistic. I am willing to believe that the US is still adapting to the internet era, when reality becomes easily distorted and noise obfuscate truth. On top of it all we have Fox Noise channel spinning into oblivion any legitimate discourse in the nation. Perhaps in the future that cancer will self-destruct and we can go back to fixing broken healthcare, broken finance, broken climate policy, broken government.

I'm with you on this. You can only keep up the obfuscation so long before people begin to catch on. People have gotten tired of the endless mudslinging by the right. Obama has been scrutinized more than any other President in my memory. I don't really believe this is because he's black. It's simply because he won the election and the right is desperate to find something/anything ( a Whitewater or Lewinski ) and can't seem to latch on to anything with this guy. The Birther thing was the best they could do which was laughable at best!

Soon they will run out of steam and perhaps the government will be able to get something done instead of being bogged down by partisan stupidity. It's really just a matter of time.

Don't get me wrong the Democrats aren't complete angels but they're a much better alternative to the conservatives who's main message these days seems to be " No! ".

I don't really beileve they'll change their minds but no one will be listening ( except their small core ). Small cores don't win elections. They'll be back but this has gone on so long now the damage control and revamping era will take a considerable period of time.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #153 of 190
Thread Starter 
Jimmy Carter agrees with me:

Quote:
Former US President Jimmy Carter says much of the vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms and spending plans is "based on racism".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8258011.stm

And the ironic thing is this: Obama is mostly white. His mother was 100% white and he was raised by his mother and white grandparents. He almost never saw his dad. In fact he is close to 100% white.
post #154 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Jimmy Carter agrees with me:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8258011.stm

And the ironic thing is this: Obama is mostly white. His mother was 100% white and he was raised by his mother and white grandparents. He almost never saw his dad. In fact he is close to 100% white.

Yeah I read that this morning. Here's couple of videos on the subject.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=32873629?

I've stated previously that I don't believe this is based on racism but I suppose it could be a component. One thing's for sure Obama has been examined and critisized more than any other president in his first year than I can remember. The type of crtical analysis Bush should have had from the start. The first guy in the video seems to think it's because people are angry at our leaders in Washington and on Wall st. What he didn't say is " After Bush ". And guess what? He's a Republican.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #155 of 190
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah I read that this morning. Here's couple of videos on the subject.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=32873629?

I've stated previously that I don't believe this is based on racism but I suppose it could be a component. One thing's for sure Obama has been examined and critisized more than any other president in his first year than I can remember. The type of crtical analysis Bush should have had from the start. The first guy in the video seems to think it's because people are angry at our leaders in Washington and on Wall st. What he didn't say is " After Bush ". And guess what? He's a Republican.

People should be angry at the WH and Congress for passing reform that bails out banks but not people. They have every right to be angry and have to push for financial reform so this mess doesn't repeat. But trying to defeat healthcare because you are angry at the president is like shooting yourself in the foot because you are angry at your revolver. Politicians were correct in bailing out banks and big business, that much is not debatable. Had it not happened (like some Republicans were suggesting) we would be in a great depression right now, period. But that lending hand has to be followed by a nice big slap in the face.

When the healthcare battle ends the financial reform battle will begin, and that one will be even messier.
post #156 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

People should be angry at the WH and Congress for passing reform that bails out banks but not people. They have every right to be angry and have to push for financial reform so this mess doesn't repeat. But trying to defeat healthcare because you are angry at the president is like shooting yourself in the foot because you are angry at your revolver. Politicians were correct in bailing out banks and big business, that much is not debatable. Had it not happened (like some Republicans were suggesting) we would be in a great depression right now, period. But that lending hand has to be followed by a nice big slap in the face.

When the healthcare battle ends the financial reform battle will begin, and that one will be even messier.

You're probably right about that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #157 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

I know. I live in the United States too. I really wish we had a real democracy here. Apparently getting elected by a majority isn't really a democracy when the a fringe minority group can completely derail everything before you even get a chance to fucking try.

Oh well.

I can wish can't I?

So the process was broken when Bush "stole" the election. Now it is broken when the Democratics win elections including the presidency and and both houses of Congress.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps when things keep going in a manner contrary to what you want that perhaps it isn't a fring minority but the majority?

Obama told a bunch of lies and got elected on them. People expect him to keep his word and when he doesn't, they push back because they want the promises not what has arrived. In fact if you look back at posts from that time, I said Obama would essentually be no different from Bush and that is why I spent an entire thread looking at this from a generational angle. It isn't a Democrat or Republican thing. It is a boomer thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Yes, the democratic process is broken. But I am optimistic. I am willing to believe that the US is still adapting to the internet era, when reality becomes easily distorted and noise obfuscate truth. On top of it all we have Fox Noise channel spinning into oblivion any legitimate discourse in the nation. Perhaps in the future that cancer will self-destruct and we can go back to fixing broken healthcare, broken finance, broken climate policy, broken government.

The process isn't broken and since when did the definition of it being fixed limiting the channels of information?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Jimmy Carter agrees with me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8258011.stm

And the ironic thing is this: Obama is mostly white. His mother was 100% white and he was raised by his mother and white grandparents. He almost never saw his dad. In fact he is close to 100% white.

You say that like it is good to agree with Carter. Carter is a one termer for a reason. Obama listening to him will lead to the same result again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

People should be angry at the WH and Congress for passing reform that bails out banks but not people. They have every right to be angry and have to push for financial reform so this mess doesn't repeat. But trying to defeat healthcare because you are angry at the president is like shooting yourself in the foot because you are angry at your revolver. Politicians were correct in bailing out banks and big business, that much is not debatable. Had it not happened (like some Republicans were suggesting) we would be in a great depression right now, period. But that lending hand has to be followed by a nice big slap in the face.

When the healthcare battle ends the financial reform battle will begin, and that one will be even messier.

People wouldn't have to be angry if the government just got out of the bailout business all together. This is always the issue when government has the power. They always perfectly misapply it. With Democrats in office they are bailing out banks. They are giving Wall St. free money. Obama agrees not to negotiate with Big Pharma for ten years to get "savings" and a pledge to promote his health care plan.

Simply put, you don't have to worry about government doing it wrong, if government isn't in the business of doing it at all.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #158 of 190
Quote:
One of the president's staff members anxiously pulled a few of us aside. "The president is misunderstanding this proposal," he warned. "He has the wrong idea in his head. ... It wasn't that the president didn't understand what his administration wanted to do. It was that the treasury secretary didn't seem to know, changed his mind, had misled the president, or some combination of the three.

Guess the name of the president mentioned in this quote!
post #159 of 190
Here's an angry guy!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...partisan-vote/

Quote:
Resolution criticizing Wilson passes, on mostly partisan vote

Quote:
The House of Representatives on Tuesday formally admonished Republican Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting "you lie" during President Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress last week.

The House passed a resolution of disapproval on a 240-179 vote that was mostly along party lines, reflecting the Democratic majority in the chamber

Imagine that! Mostly along party lines. For that kind of unprofessional behaivor if this were anywhere else he wouldn't have a job anymore.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #160 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkbug View Post

Guess the name of the president mentioned in this quote!

I know! I know!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's Joint Session on Healthcare