I thought it was about time we had a thread to go in depth and discuss the good, the bad, and the other things Obama has done during his Presidency. A list of policies, his involvement in each of them, the opposition to those policies, etc.
Let's talk about Barack Obama's Presidency here!
It can be anything from health care to gay rights, specific foreign policies, Gitmo, whatever you want. Defend him, criticize him, go for it. I think would should compile all the facts and our praise and gripes into one thread.
So, who wants to get the ball rolling?
How about re-signing the PATRIOT Act for starters?
Healthcare = It's a conservative plan, so I am not impressed. And even then he cant get the conservatives to back it, which is pretty weak-sauce.
Gitmo = Yet to close it.
Foreign policies = Drone strikes on civilians, possible assassination of civilian nuclear scientists in Iran, getting involved in conflicts after the good guys have been killed (Syria) and risking giving chemical weapons to terrorist organizations (thankfully Russia bailed us out), pushed for war even though the majority of the population was against it... I know there is more, but I'm tired.
Economics = Has continued Bush-era economics, has made a few minor changes and didn't make a big deal out of Citizens United.
Drug War = Promised to let legal medical marijuana states live in peace. Has had more drug busts in his first term in those states than Bush had in two terms, as well as kept Bush's drug czar.
Immigration = Has deported more immigrants than any U.S. president before.
Gay rights = It's good he did what he did, but he only "evolved" his position after public opinion swung in its favour. I would have been more impressed if he had shown some integrity and been for it from the beginning, but good for him for doing the right thing (somewhat) anyways. Still alot of work to be done that I would like to see him push for, but he is better than anyone else has done.
Military = besides being a warmongerer he has continued to expand the military's budget while the public-sector economy struggles.
Back-bone: He hasn't really shown he has one.
So lets see... warmongerer, kills civilians indiscriminately, continues Bush-era economics, heavy-handed on deporting immigrants, lied about closing Gitmo, wants to support terrorist organizations... sorry, I see very little to like about his politics. I like him as a person, he seems like a cool guy, but then again so have alot of bad politicians.
Still better than Romney though, so I mean I guess there is that...
94% of Uninsured Americans Will Have Obamacare Premiums Below What the CBO Projected (//http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/25/obamacare_premiums_will_be_cheaper_than_the_cbo_projected.html)
Quote... but for now it looks like Obamacare will be cheaper for families and taxpayers than was thought at the time Congress voted on it.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"94% of Uninsured Americans Will Have Obamacare Premiums Below What the CBO Projected (//http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/25/obamacare_premiums_will_be_cheaper_than_the_cbo_projected.html)
Quote... but for now it looks like Obamacare will be cheaper for families and taxpayers than was thought at the time Congress voted on it.
Still astronomically more expensive and wasteful than the rest of the civilized world (note: I don't blame Obama for that, I blame the entire U.S. gov't for decades for that).
On one hand, at least it makes it cheaper. On the other hand I don't think it's a step in the right direction because it's just making the inefficient system slightly more efficient rather than switching to a more efficient system.
The most important thing that Obama has done is appoint two youngish, center-left Supreme Court justices so far. Had McCain been elected, the SC would be so overloaded with rightwingers that the damage they would wreak would be unimaginable for decades to come. Even Citizens United would be mild in comparison.
He's still got a possibility of appointing one or two more... some of them are getting pretty old.
Other good things he's done: Obamacare, rid the world of Osama bin Laden, signed the Lily Ledbetter Act, ended DADT, came out in favor of gay marriage (thus helping accelerate acceptance of gay marriage among the populace, particularly among black voters), and generally made the Republicans look like mouth-foaming fools.
Bad things: failure to close Guantanamo, extending the Patriot Act, continuing many Bush policies, saber rattling at Syria, and giving in too readily to the Refucklicans far too often.
Obama's done plenty I disagree with, but he's still far better than McCain or Romney would have been. With either one of them, take all of Obama's bad and double it, and subtract all of Obama's good. There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats: Dems do some good things and many bad things; Republicans, however, do no good at all, and they ramp up the bad beyond what any Democrat would do.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Still astronomically more expensive and wasteful than the rest of the civilized world
Agree. Nevertheless, there were an estimated 40-50 millions uninsured who didn't pay into the system. This part of the AHA at least addresses this problem. If more people pay into the system, premiums will go down.
Quote(note: I don't blame Obama for that, I blame the entire U.S. gov't for decades for that).
On one hand, at least it makes it cheaper. On the other hand I don't think it's a step in the right direction because it's just making the inefficient system slightly more efficient rather than switching to a more efficient system.
The GOP controls the House of Representative, and with that reality, the healthcare system will never get up to par with the rest of the civilized countries.
It's a cheapshot at Obama if anyone blames him for this sad state of affairs.
Some of the women at work were talking about how all their hours are getting cut, and they just found out why. If they work more than 30 hours or so, our workplace must give them healthcare benefits, so everyone is kept below 30 hours now. This was just watercooler talk, but it presents an interesting argument against implementing the new healthcare laws. Sure, the workplace is pretty scummy to do that, but it's a consequence that IS happening to people who work the shitty part-time jobs in America.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Some of the women at work were talking about how all their hours are getting cut, and they just found out why. If they work more than 30 hours or so, our workplace must give them healthcare benefits, so everyone is kept below 30 hours now. This was just watercooler talk, but it presents an interesting argument against implementing the new healthcare laws. Sure, the workplace is pretty scummy to do that, but it's a consequence that IS happening to people who work the shitty part-time jobs in America.
This is happening at a lot of companies, yeah.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Some of the women at work were talking about how all their hours are getting cut, and they just found out why. If they work more than 30 hours or so, our workplace must give them healthcare benefits, so everyone is kept below 30 hours now. This was just watercooler talk, but it presents an interesting argument against implementing the new healthcare laws. Sure, the workplace is pretty scummy to do that, but it's a consequence that IS happening to people who work the shitty part-time jobs in America.
If they're cutting people's working hours, wouldn't they need to hire more people then to make up?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Some of the women at work were talking about how all their hours are getting cut, and they just found out why. If they work more than 30 hours or so, our workplace must give them healthcare benefits, so everyone is kept below 30 hours now. This was just watercooler talk, but it presents an interesting argument against implementing the new healthcare laws. Sure, the workplace is pretty scummy to do that, but it's a consequence that IS happening to people who work the shitty part-time jobs in America.
If they're cutting people's working hours, wouldn't they need to hire more people then to make up?
I know some businesses claim it's cheaper, and I can see that.
If you have two people working minimum wage, then that's (lets say min. is $7.00 in the state) $14 an hour for however many hours a week. That is still alot cheaper then having to provide healthcare benefits.
I know at Walgreen's they worked us pretty much 39h 59m 59s so that they wouldn't have to provide us with any benefits.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Some of the women at work were talking about how all their hours are getting cut, and they just found out why. If they work more than 30 hours or so, our workplace must give them healthcare benefits, so everyone is kept below 30 hours now. This was just watercooler talk, but it presents an interesting argument against implementing the new healthcare laws. Sure, the workplace is pretty scummy to do that, but it's a consequence that IS happening to people who work the shitty part-time jobs in America.
If they're cutting people's working hours, wouldn't they need to hire more people then to make up?
They are. I've seen 3 new people in the past 3 days.
I can't blame Obama for gitmo. Congress made it illegal to bring them into the country to face trial, which I believe was sort of like spitting on the constitution. I don't like exempting those prisoners from the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Con - everything I didn't like about Bush is continued under Obama. Top of the list, war.
I wonder, though. Since I criticized Obama by calling him Bush 2.0, does that make me a racist?
Quote from: "Eric1958"I can't blame Obama for gitmo. Congress made it illegal to bring them into the country to face trial, which I believe was sort of like spitting on the constitution. I don't like exempting those prisoners from the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Yeah I was gonna say, I'm pretty sure Obama does not have 100% say in what happens to Gitmo...
Under Obama the rich are getting richer and the poor and getting poorer. And next year a bunch of us poor will also get to go to jail because we can't pay for Obamacare and continue to pay rent, eat, buy clothes, and other unnecessary things like that. I guess that makes me a GOP dog, hate-mongering racist, sexists pig, stupid dumbass.
Then the fact I am not in jail this year, bodes well for Obama. Under the GOP dogs I would already be in jail. But, then employment would be up because of the all of the new jails needing to be built, so I guess that is a wash.
Under Obama, unemployment is down. But then underemployment continues to rise. I see that as a wash too.
Nah, I think Jason_Harvestdancer sums it up well:
QuoteI criticized Obama by calling him Bush 2.0,
And it is a damn good thing the Republicans are around. Without them, who could you blame all of the ills of the world on. Definitely not Obama's administration, that would make you a racist.
Or is this just all GOP lies:
//http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/top-1-getting-95-income-gains-washington-responsible-151332783.html
And thanks need to go to The Whit for posting this link elsewhere.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Some of the women at work were talking about how all their hours are getting cut, and they just found out why. If they work more than 30 hours or so, our workplace must give them healthcare benefits, so everyone is kept below 30 hours now. This was just watercooler talk, but it presents an interesting argument against implementing the new healthcare laws. Sure, the workplace is pretty scummy to do that, but it's a consequence that IS happening to people who work the shitty part-time jobs in America.
That business model became common place at tons of American businesses 30 years ago. Some businesses managed to make it work, but others found the ensuing moral/productivity/quality employee retention issues were more costly than the money they saved by limiting hours and thus not paying their employees a living wage.
It may be true that obamacare will cause more businesses to switch more of their workforce to part time, but ultimately the laws of supply and demand will dictate what businesses must offer in order to keep employee turnover within acceptable levels for profitability. IOW this too shall pass for the majority of the workforce IMHO.
Johan wrote in part:
QuoteIt may be true that obamacare will cause more businesses to switch more of their workforce to part time, but ultimately the laws of supply and demand will dictate what businesses must offer in order to keep employee turnover within acceptable levels for profitability. IOW this too shall pass for the majority of the workforce IMHO.
I respectfully disagree. While in the past it didn't work, now the workers have no place else to go. Many are staying at shitty low paying jobs, because they can't find anything else. People who in past would find new and better jobs would leave vacancies for those who stayed with the organization thus two people would be better off. Now, those better jobs are just not there. Leaving two people in crappy situations. Many people are making half what they used to make, and don't see anyway to get back to making the money they used to. Not in real dollars anyhow.
This has been an ongoing trend for at least a decade and we can't give all of the blame to Obama. But, many of us don't see Obama doing anything to help change it either. Thus, Bush 2.0.
Quote from: "Atheon"The most important thing that Obama has done is appoint two youngish, center-left Supreme Court justices so far.
I think this is often overlooked when talking about the legacy of (Democratic) presidents. The right has done a much better job of stirring up a focus on the court among their base--"got to get more conservatives on the supreme court to overturn row v wade and roll back gun control".
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Johan wrote in part:QuoteIt may be true that obamacare will cause more businesses to switch more of their workforce to part time, but ultimately the laws of supply and demand will dictate what businesses must offer in order to keep employee turnover within acceptable levels for profitability. IOW this too shall pass for the majority of the workforce IMHO.
I respectfully disagree. While in the past it didn't work, now the workers have no place else to go. Many are staying at shitty low paying jobs, because they can't find anything else. People who in past would find new and better jobs would leave vacancies for those who stayed with the organization thus two people would be better off. Now, those better jobs are just not there. Leaving two people in crappy situations. Many people are making half what they used to make, and don't see anyway to get back to making the money they used to. Not in real dollars anyhow.
I hear these sorts of statements all the time and for the life of me, I always have to wonder if the people making them were actually paying attention 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I cannot recall a time in my life when good desirable jobs were easy to find. I also cannot recall a time in my life when the people I knew personally who had a top notch work ethic and reasonable amounts talent along with nose to the grindstone get it done attitudes could not find gainful employment for themselves. The stoners? The burn outs? The idiots who acted like the world owed them something and believed they were too good to start at the bottom and work their way up? Yeah, they always had trouble finding work 30 years ago and they still do today.
There are no jobs now? My company has been looking for people for over a year now. They're paying current employees a finders fee if they refer a new hire. We're so in need of new hires that we had a sign built and installed in front of our office that says we're hiring. Not just a 'NOW HIRING' banner you get at Kinkos for $10. A painted wooden sign with graphics and artwork. There are probably four or five other businesses within 5 miles of our office with similar signs out front. Keep in mind as well that we're based in a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. If you tell me that there are no jobs out there that you would want or that you're qualified for I might agree. But if you tell there are no jobs period I'm sorry but I just don't see it.
QuoteThis has been an ongoing trend for at least a decade and we can't give all of the blame to Obama. But, many of us don't see Obama doing anything to help change it either. Thus, Bush 2.0.
With all due respect, what exactly is Obama supposed to do? And let me be clear, I'm no Obama fan. But there are lots of jobs out there. The job market is changing mind you and its definitely not the 1970's anymore. But exactly what is the president supposed to do if businesses decide that they want to move to part time model for most of their staff or if businesses decide they don't want hire applicants who think its acceptable to show up for job interview in sweatpants and flip flops? How is that the presidents fault?
I had a conversation with a hard core Obama hater last year. He said that in his opinion, Obama was the worst president we'd ever had. I asked him to explain why he thought that was. He said we're so much worse off now. I asked him to give examples of how his life was worse now than it was before Obama. The ONLY thing he could come up with was that gas was more expensive now than it was 8 years ago.
My response was that I could not recall a time in my life when gas was not more expensive than it was 8 years ago. But more importantly I asked him to explain when exactly gas prices became something the president was responsible for managing. Surprisingly he could not explain that to me.
I get that people hate Obama. Like I said, I'm not a big fan of him myself. But I don't understand the line of thinking when people say they hate Obama because of things that no president has ever been responsible for or had any control over.
Well..continue war? Which one? Afghanistan? It's winding down if not fast enough to everyones liking, but Iraq ended. Like it or not this world has a lot of haters. This nation has done little to nothing to stop that from happening and it began long before Obama was born. It's a history of exploitation to max profit and killing people for our way of life IS our way of life.
Blame Obama? That's a lot to heap on anyone.
Strangely our entire economic system is based on survival of the fittest and on this planet it means being the biggest bad ass on the planet. It's designed to extract everything from anyone at any price and if we don't do it someone else will.
Yeah, that's all Obama's fault. Grow up and stop singing kumbya.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I guess that makes me a GOP dog, hate-mongering racist, sexists pig, stupid dumbass.
You don't need to brag about it, we all know that you're a racist.
Johan wrote in part:
QuoteI hear these sorts of statements all the time and for the life of me, I always have to wonder if the people making them were actually paying attention 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
I'm no longer in the job market so I can't give anecdotal evidence for my view about this. Just this graph.
(//http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/epi-jobs_underemployment-total.png)
//http://www.nwlc.org/our-blog/hours-are-new-bonus-what-does-mean-workers-earning-minimum-wage
High unemployment and many people considered underemployed.
On a side note, Johan what industry do you work in? Because I know a lot of people who would like to get employed into something with a future. Seriously, I am not joking or trying to make a point. It would be great if I could point someone in the right direction.
The rest of the Johan's argument is just attacking a straw man. I have never said Obama is the worse the president we have ever had. I don't complain about the price of gas going up, and if it did I would have to have a reason to peg the blame on Obama or any other president. And I don't hate Obama.
I do find it annoying that Obama promised things which I knew he could not deliver when he was running for president, and now he is not being held to task for not delivering. Yes, I know all of the candidates for president make campaign promises they know they can't deliver on. But, I didn't like it when Bush did it and I still didn't like it when Obama did it.
I don't know what Obama or anyone else can do to change the employment situation. But, then if Obama can't do anything to change it now, how can we hold Bush responsible for the employment situation when he was president? Bush and Obama both agreed on the banksters' bail out. Thus, Bush 2.0, based on conduct rather than race.
I don't hate Obama. I didn't hate Bush. I did and do disagree in the direction they both seem to have us on. I do blame their Wall Street masters. Who are more concerned with lining their own pockets than the welfare of this country or the world for that matter. But, then I am probably just talking in code.
You have to check with josephpalazzo to find out what I really mean. He is after all the world's foremost expert on what I really think.
QuoteYou don't need to brag about it, we all know that you're a racist.
Torquemada McCarthy strikes again!
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I guess that makes me a GOP dog, hate-mongering racist, sexists pig, stupid dumbass.
You don't need to brag about it, we all know that you're a racist.
So it's official - saying Obama is Bush 2.0 is a racist comment.
Blame the financial people, the GOP lead charge for deregulation and zero accountability of banks. It became institutionalized robbery and continues on a global scale..
Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I guess that makes me a GOP dog, hate-mongering racist, sexists pig, stupid dumbass.
You don't need to brag about it, we all know that you're a racist.
So it's official - saying Obama is Bush 2.0 is a racist comment.
It's clear to me that the only person here who gives a rat's ass about the color of the President's skin is josephpalazzo.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Blame the financial people, the GOP lead charge for deregulation and zero accountability of banks. It became institutionalized robbery and continues on a global scale..
Plenty of Democrats were all too happy to sit by the wayside and let it happen.
I would like to point out that one of the only people in the government to try to bring attention to this issue was Ron Paul.
To be fair Dennis Kucinich (D) also questioned the bailouts. I always thought of Kucinich as the Democrat Ron Paul. Each party is allowed one member to shake the boat.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"To be fair Dennis Kucinich (D) also questioned the bailouts. I always thought of Kucinich as the Democrat Ron Paul. Each party is allowed one member to shake the boat.
Gawd, I love Kucinich. I was rooting for him in the primaries all those years ago.....
Ohio, represent, yo. *throws gang sign*
Look folks.. The financial elite pay no homage to us. Parties matter not because both are paid in full so it boils down to which throws us the most crumbs. I get more crumbs from the left so I root for the biggest crumb thrower..
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"On a side note, Johan what industry do you work in? Because I know a lot of people who would like to get employed into something with a future. Seriously, I am not joking or trying to make a point. It would be great if I could point someone in the right direction.
I work in the trucking industry. Pretty much every trucking company I know is hiring. That's because lots of those companies treat their employees poorly and pay crap rates. But a crappy low paying job is still better than no job in my book. I should note that I mentioned several other businesses near my office also have hiring signs out front. None of them are trucking companies. Most are manufacturing of some sort. Some are looking for unskilled labor, others are looking for skilled labor. Welders is something I see companies looking for on their hiring signs a lot in this area. There are also other openings and there are openings in sectors that not related to manufacturing.
I don't deny that unemployment is high. But I also stand by my assertion that anyone who claims there are no jobs out there either isn't looking hard enough or being open minded enough.
I should also mention that trucking was never a goal of mine. I got into it only because I became disenchanted with aviation and didn't want to fly anymore. So I needed to find something else to do and when I opened the paper, there were lots of ads for trucking jobs. I did a six week CDL program at a driving school and had a job offer in hand before I had the license. I should probably also mention that I first got into trucking about 9 years ago, did it for a year and then got into computer repair. After moving to the midwest right when ipads and tablets started taking away a huge chunk of the PC repair market, I got back into trucking. IOW I got over the whole 'I'm only going to work in my dream career field' thing and now I go where the jobs are and where the money is.
QuoteThe rest of the Johan's argument is just attacking a straw man. I have never said Obama is the worse the president we have ever had. I don't complain about the price of gas going up, and if it did I would have to have a reason to peg the blame on Obama or any other president. And I don't hate Obama.
I didn't mean to suggest that you hated Obama nor did I suggest that you were complaining about gas prices.
QuoteI do find it annoying that Obama promised things which I knew he could not deliver when he was running for president, and now he is not being held to task for not delivering. Yes, I know all of the candidates for president make campaign promises they know they can't deliver on. But, I didn't like it when Bush did it and I still didn't like it when Obama did it.
Same here. Couldn't agree more.
QuoteI don't know what Obama or anyone else can do to change the employment situation. But, then if Obama can't do anything to change it now, how can we hold Bush responsible for the employment situation when he was president?
I agree again.
Obama was hamstrung from day one to be destined to become Carter II, but stuck in a system that's dominated by guess who? Billionaires and trillionaires.. He's forced to play their games and we're the pawns..
Johan, thanks for the information. Unfortunately, one the people I wanted to suggest a job market to, had three accidents in the first year he started driving. He's a nice guy but, a little accident prone. Still, it is a good idea for some people. Better sitting in a cab all day, then in front of the boobtube wondering how the hell your going to pay rent this month.
Sorry if I confused your comments to mean me. Guess I a little jumpy.
AllPurposeAtheist wrote:
QuoteObama was hamstrung from day one to be destined to become Carter II, but stuck in a system that's dominated by guess who? Billionaires and trillionaires.. He's forced to play their games and we're the pawns..
Agreed. So, maybe we ought to be calling him Carter 3.0 or something. A well meaning guy who gets to pretend he has power.
Believe it or not, accidents on your record aren't automatically a deal breaker for those entering trucking. Felony convictions are a much bigger deal. Recent DUI's are also generally a deal breaker. But accidents that happened 5 or 10 years ago shouldn't cause much of an issue as long as there were no fatalities and the driving record is clean otherwise.
Of course not everyone is cut out for every job and this especially true in trucking. Depending on what area you go into, it can be a tough life. This is especially true early on where most of the available jobs will involve going other the road. Being on the road and away from home for weeks at a stretch while living in a 4'x8' box and showering in truckstops is not something that everyone can handle. As you get more experience, more and better jobs open up that allow you to get home more often.
If you've got above average smarts and/or above average luck, you might be able to find local (not over the road) jobs right out of school with no experience. That's what happened in my case. I've pretty much always been able to park the truck and come home at the end of every work day. But that's the exception not the rule. Most people entering the industry end up having to do at least a year or so of over the road driving with limited time at home and I would advise anyone entering the industry to plan on that. Once you're a year in, jobs with better home time (and better treatment and pay) open up. By two or three years in, local work where you go home every day is very doable.
I loved flying. But I hated flying professionally. When your hobby becomes your job, you don't have a hobby anymore. Trucking was something I got into simply because the barriers to entry were fairly low and there were jobs available. But I can honestly say that I love my current job way more than any flying job I ever had. The pay is better, I'm home more and I don't have to look at the engine every morning and say out loud 'is today the day you're going to try to kill me?' like I did when I flying ratty 50 year old relics down low and in the dirt all day long.
In case anyone forgot the choices were Obama and either McCain - "There's no country in the world I wouldn't bomb" - or Romney - "I only like rich motherfuckers."
There was no choice.
Quote from: "Minimalist"In case anyone forgot the choices were Obama and either McCain - "There's no country in the world I wouldn't bomb" - or Romney - "I only like rich motherfuckers."
There was no choice.
Write-ins and 3rd party candidates? Not feasible? Why? Maybe it's because nobody ever fucking thinks to do it? Maybe if we stopped choosing to go along with the elitists false dichotomy of democrat or republican we could make some real progress!
Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "Minimalist"In case anyone forgot the choices were Obama and either McCain - "There's no country in the world I wouldn't bomb" - or Romney - "I only like rich motherfuckers."
There was no choice.
Write-ins and 3rd party candidates? Not feasible? Why? Maybe it's because nobody ever fucking thinks to do it? Maybe if we stopped choosing to go along with the elitists false dichotomy of democrat or republican we could make some real progress!
Lots of people
think to do it. And quite of few of them actually do it. But if you put all those people together and then magically multiplied them by ten, you still wouldn't have enough to make a third candidate realistically electable IMO.
Quote from: "Minimalist"In case anyone forgot the choices were Obama and either McCain - "There's no country in the world I wouldn't bomb" - or Romney - "I only like rich motherfuckers."
There was no choice.
The election of Obama and the hatred that insued is indicative that the country wasn't/ isn't ready for a black president. The one good thing is that it made everyone aware that racism is as bad if not worse than 50 years ago. The main difference is that 50 years ago, racists were open about their racism, now they wear it on their sleeves.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I guess that makes me a GOP dog, hate-mongering racist, sexists pig, stupid dumbass.
You don't need to brag about it, we all know that you're a racist.
It's clear to me that the only person here who gives a rat's ass about the color of the President's skin is josephpalazzo.
I've answered you in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2452&start=135 (http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2452&start=135)
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"It's clear to me that the only person here who gives a rat's ass about the color of the President's skin is josephpalazzo.
He does seem obsessed with the color of Obama's skin. Ordinarily, I would call that a variation of racism, but I think in this case, is just a way to deflect any criticism one might have of the current administration.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"It's clear to me that the only person here who gives a rat's ass about the color of the President's skin is josephpalazzo.
He does seem obsessed with the color of Obama's skin. Ordinarily, I would call that a variation of racism, but I think in this case, is just a way to deflect any criticism one might have of the current administration.
I find it rather comical that the three (or seven) of you all agree but seem to be arguing through a mirror in which you read what one says as completely backward of what is meant. And then a shit fest occurs all because one has a preconceived notion of what a person is going to say and reads it into their comprehension when in fact what the person said agrees with the whole gist. The great conundrum of the net is one cannot present the tone and intent of the point. But by now it has escaladed into a "nobody really gives a shit the intent" anymore, its all about chest bowing and slamming your dicks on the table.
Johan, thanks again for the information on the trucking industry. Like I said, I don't think the guy I was thinking of would be able to do the job. Not because of the accidents on his record, but because he tends to space out too much, which is why he got into the accidents. He has had accidents at his other jobs, non-vehicular in nature as well. I think he needs a job sitting at a desk, not working with dangerous equipment.
Back to topic, Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian before joining the Republican Party and getting elected to the House. Still, running for president as a Republican he was painted as being a nutjob by the mainstream press. I'm sure there are socialists within the Democrat party who when they start making waves against the rich are then painted as nutjobs as well. I can't remember her name, but there was a Representative from South Carolina who when she started trouble by trying to get the military to account for millions of dollars which were gone with no explanation, got painted as a nutjob and didn't get re-elected. So, I see both parties working at keeping those who "won't play ball," in line.
Bottom line, Johan is probably right in that a third party candidate is not electable. And candidates working for the people will not be allowed in the game.
Quote from: "Johan"It may be true that obamacare will cause more businesses to switch more of their workforce to part time, but ultimately the laws of supply and demand will dictate what businesses must offer in order to keep employee turnover within acceptable levels for profitability. IOW this too shall pass for the majority of the workforce IMHO.
This is taken from a poster on another forum, but worth a repeat:
QuoteActually, a lot of the AHCA is directed at cutting the costs of health care. One of the biggest provisions that has already gone into effect is the one that holds health care insurance companies' profits and administrative costs to 20%. Believe me, they have thrown a shitload of money at fighting this plan -- and that's why. If you follow the money, you'll understand why the costs of health care have risen so precipitously. It's actually for very few reasons, and the AHCA addresses them all. Not as well as if a public option had been included, but it's a damn good start.
1. Health care industry profits were in excess of 40% at the time the AHCA went into effect. So instantly, those profits were cut in half. And they're not done. The law imposes more restrictions every year. Is it any wonder these corporations hate Obamacare so much?
2. Duplication of effort/records was another huge cost factor. This is why automation requirements are part of the AHCA. You'll hear a lot of small providers bitching and complaining about having to purchase and implement new records-keeping software to comply. I understand their pain, but the idea behind it is to eliminate duplication of procedures and create availability of records to all physicians at all times. So now, if your primary care physician sends you for an MRI and then refers you to a specialist, the specialist doesn't refer you for a second MRI -- he has access to the information gleaned from the first one.
3. The amount of money spent for end-of-life care is hugely disproportionate to the funds spent throughout a lifetime for regular prudent care. Here's where the discussion of "death panels" comes in. SOMEONE has to be responsible for determining what is reasonable and prudent care as opposed to extraordinary care to extend someone's life as they approach a natural death. Right now, it's insurance companies -- with a profit motive. This duty is now shifted to the government, which has no profit motive. No different than standards that have been established for many years in European countries and others. And nothing precludes someone from expending their own private means to whatever extent they wish to keep on keepin' on.
4. Remember that old saw, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? The AHCA addresses that, too. That's why all preventive treatments are now to be made available at virtually no cost to the patient. It's much less costly to remove a bad little mole than to treat melanoma for a few years.
If people actually understood all the good things the AHCA does for them, they'd be thrilled about it. But change is hard and scary, so... here we are.
I almost seems to me that the only possible route to real change in this country is a revolution.
I like how Obama blames people who don't buy health insurance as the evil freeloaders as the problem instead of the hospitals that charge $18 for a $0.05 blood test strip. I am a freeloader on the medical system because I don't pay into health insurance even though I have yet to go to a hospital in my entire adult life? Obama brought up auto insurance in an interview about ACA, and drew parallels between the penalties of of not having auto insurance and not having health insurance. The difference is I can avoid both the cost of auto insurance AND the penalties of not having it by not driving a car. I cannot avoid both the penalties of not having health insurance AND the cost of health insurance because I can't change the fact that I'm human. The only way to get out of this shit is to leave the country. As someone who spent 8 years serving my country I don't appreciate the government pointing a gun at my face and telling me I HAVE to buy something...and then telling me I should be happy about it.
There is a real problem with health care in America, but this is not a solution.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/01/wh ... -run-wild/ (http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/01/why-our-health-care-lets-prices-run-wild/)
Quote from: "Satt"I almost seems to me that the only possible route to real change in this country is a revolution.
quoted for muther fukin truth.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "The Whit"Quote from: "Minimalist"In case anyone forgot the choices were Obama and either McCain - "There's no country in the world I wouldn't bomb" - or Romney - "I only like rich motherfuckers."
There was no choice.
Write-ins and 3rd party candidates? Not feasible? Why? Maybe it's because nobody ever fucking thinks to do it? Maybe if we stopped choosing to go along with the elitists false dichotomy of democrat or republican we could make some real progress!
Lots of people think to do it. And quite of few of them actually do it. But if you put all those people together and then magically multiplied them by ten, you still wouldn't have enough to make a third candidate realistically electable IMO.
The system is set up such that non-(major)-party candidates don't have a chance. Let's pretend that an independent candidate popped up who was just as popular as the two major party ones--don't expect that to actually happen, though. They split the votes with no one getting enough to be president. Then the house votes to select the president (I don't remember if it is the newly elected house or the previous one). Is the majority party going to give up the chance to put their guy in?
The only way to avoid this is to actually have a 3rd party, with congressmen and governors and the whole lot, and most (or at least many) states have rules set up to severely weaken whatever party ends up in 3rd (or lower) place. So it first would need to start with local movements to advance the position of 3rd parties in each state and then some new group would need to emerge that could compete nation-wide without simply stealing votes from one of the per-existing parties, thereby handing the election to the other side (So no tea-party as 3rd party, no Dixie-Crats).
Satt wrote:
QuoteI almost seems to me that the only possible route to real change in this country is a revolution.
Your probably right. But the costs will be horrendous. And you risk getting disappeared even suggesting such a thing. The Patriot Act is still in force comrade.
One thing Obamacare doesn't seem to address is the availability of healthcare workers. If doctors can't make enough to pay off their student loans, then there won't be anybody to give the free or low-cost preventive care. Another thing which I don't think is addressed, is tort reform in regards to healthcare. Or for allowing more use of physician assistants in giving care. Over a thousand pages and its' just about insurance for the most part. I really hoped it would address the whole healthcare industry and not just health insurance.
I'm also dubious of the enforcement of regulations on the insurance companies. Case in point, here in California PG&E suddenly tripled our bills one month. The same month the retiring CEO of PG&E got a 100 million plus retirement package. PG&E said it was to pay for the new smart meters they made us take, and the regulators seemingly took it hook, line, and sinker. Making many in our state to believe the right bribes had been made. If I am right about this, the big health insurance companies will not be watched while the small companies will get fined for not having all of their "I's" dotted. Which will make it easier for the large companies to swallow the littler companies.
Obama will term limit out in 2019, then we will have someone else watching the hen house as it were. I don't trust the Obama administration to ensure the regulators do what they are supposed to do, and in a few years we may have Big Daddy Warbucks in the Whitehouse watching the regulators.
At any rate, at best Obamacare is a good first step. At worst, it could end up causing a civil war which will make the first one look like a domestic argument. IMHO.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"One thing Obamacare doesn't seem to address is the availability of healthcare workers. [. . .] Or for allowing more use of physician assistants in giving care.
If the government were to be forward thinking--and not have to worry about cries of "government take over, more entitlements, ballooning debt, nanny state"--I think they could work to remedy this while lowering unemployment and strengthen the economy. They could, just pulling numbers off the top of my head, offer 15 year student loans with a fixed 2.5% interest rate to anyone doing an accredited physician assistants program (would need some safe-guards, obviously). As long as they didn't flood the marked to a ridiculous degree, they should be able to find decent paying, stable jobs without too much difficulty. The government could incentivize people to fill a need. As long as I'm pipe-dreaming, it seems that schools would make programs that specialized in taking working physician assistants and turning them into actual doctors or specialists.
First world problems. There is some serious whining going on up in here. Every mother fucker on this forum has more than they deserve. Including me.
QuoteWrite-ins and 3rd party candidates? Not feasible? Why? Maybe it's because nobody ever fucking thinks to do it?
There is only one thing that the two parties agree on and that is that there should only be two parties. Take some time to examine the roadblocks that are erected to prevent third party candidates from even getting on the ballot in all 50 states and you will have some idea of the problem needed to be overcome before anyone can even think about a 3d party.
And....if a third party president were elected, how would he/she govern without any sort of faction in Congress to build upon.
No, my friend. This country has been stolen but you can't keep parroting "constitution this and constitution that" like those tea bagging shitheads who don't ever seem to have read the fucking thing. The country was stolen by state legislatures and national political parties.
As for "revolution?" By whom? We had the same situation in Egypt when the uprising started. A shitload of unemployed kids with college degrees who couldn't get jobs. In Egypt they went out and brought down the government...and accomplished nothing. Here, they sat around on their asses and waited for the newest cell phone app to come out....and accomplished nothing.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"At any rate, at best Obamacare is a good first step. At worst, it could end up causing a civil war which will make the first one look like a domestic argument. IMHO.
I think at worst, Obamacare will lock us into a second rate pro business healthcare program that will be difficult to extricate ourselves from. As I understand, most liberals who supported healthcare still want something on par with other western societies that have single payer type systems.
But as issues need to be addressed in Obamacare, the government will tweak it here and there giving the appearance of moving forward, while making sure the CEOs still get their bonuses. The problem with affordable health insurance has always been the insurance companies, and that will continue to plague American families. Private insurance needs to be taken out of the picture. They could still sell supplemental plans, but their grip on Americans needs to be eliminated.
That's quite draconian, but it's the revolution we need to end up with the desired outcome. That's what happened in other western societies. If Obamacare doesn't deliver, it will be that much more ammunition the Republicans can use against actual affordable healthcare for everyone down the road. If it does deliver much at all, we will be told what a good job the government is doing for the people.
I don't see this as a good first step. I see it more like a lock step, one which entrenches Americans in a less than ideal healthcare program for years to come. Americans wanted healthcare, but few envisioned it would be what we ended up with. I hoped the Democratic controlled House would have killed this bill as they threatened, but in spite of Congressional claims that the house didn't have enough support to pass it, the Democrats folded. Killing the bill would have put off healthcare for a few more years, but wouldn't have saddled us with dealing with Corporate institutions, which has always been the problem that people wanted to address.
Quote from: "Jmpty"First world problems. There is some serious whining going on up in here. Every mother fucker on this forum has more than they deserve. Including me.
You're absolutely right. Instead of pointing out that the system exploits millions of people, putting millions into poverty and could be more efficent like in the rest of the world... we should just shut the fuck up and be happy with what we have. Lets just not point out the flaws and let the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, the fact that we murder thousands of civilians in countries we aren't even at war with, that our government wants to turn is into the next USSR with its espionage on its own civilians... cause I mean they have it worse in Africa so how dare you complain!
Yeah, fuck that. Just because people have it worse than us doesn't mean we have to therefor say, "Well, we are better off than them so we shouldn't try to increase our living standards or stop killing civilians in other countries.". It's exactly that type of mentality that will make us as bad off as the people who have it worse.
Quote from: "Minimalist"There is only one thing that the two parties agree on and that is that there should only be two parties. Take some time to examine the roadblocks that are erected to prevent third party candidates from even getting on the ballot in all 50 states and you will have some idea of the problem needed to be overcome before anyone can even think about a 3d party.
And....if a third party president were elected, how would he/she govern without any sort of faction in Congress to build upon.
No, my friend. This country has been stolen but you can't keep parroting "constitution this and constitution that" like those tea bagging shitheads who don't ever seem to have read the fucking thing. The country was stolen by state legislatures and national political parties.
As for "revolution?" By whom? We had the same situation in Egypt when the uprising started. A shitload of unemployed kids with college degrees who couldn't get jobs. In Egypt they went out and brought down the government...and accomplished nothing. Here, they sat around on their asses and waited for the newest cell phone app to come out....and accomplished nothing.
I never said, "vote for the third party presidential candidate and then stick your thumb up your ass." You're right, you can't just vote out one motherfucker and change the whole system. You need to vote out
EVERYBODY! Every third party candidate for the Senate and House. Do NOT vote for Republicans or Democrats at all. The American people have much more power than they think they do, they just need to use it.
You will never get what you want from your government if you keep voting for the people the rich bought out. Have some motherfucking integrity and vote for who you want to represent you!
Poison Tree, getting any politician to think further than the next election is seemingly next to impossible. And the owners of the Fed who own the country and don't want them to think ahead. So, it ain't gone to happen. Damn it.
Other than that, your other ideas seem to be better than what we are getting out of the Obama administration. Ever think of running for office?
Obama is a lame-duck president. Why doesn't he start acting like he isn't running for re-election and expose the real hurdles to getting things done in Washington? So what, if he steps on AIPAC's toes? So what, if he pisses off his big multi-national campaign contributors? So what, if his fellow Democrats get mad at him? He should try to carry out his campaign promises, and quit blaming me for the lousy state of the union.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Jmpty"First world problems. There is some serious whining going on up in here. Every mother fucker on this forum has more than they deserve. Including me.
You're absolutely right. Instead of pointing out that the system exploits millions of people, putting millions into poverty and could be more efficent like in the rest of the world... we should just shut the fuck up and be happy with what we have. Lets just not point out the flaws and let the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, the fact that we murder thousands of civilians in countries we aren't even at war with, that our government wants to turn is into the next USSR with its espionage on its own civilians... cause I mean they have it worse in Africa so how dare you complain!
Yeah, fuck that. Just because people have it worse than us doesn't mean we have to therefor say, "Well, we are better off than them so we shouldn't try to increase our living standards or stop killing civilians in other countries.". It's exactly that type of mentality that will make us as bad off as the people who have it worse.
You should have just stopped there. I hear you whining about shit, but what are you doing to change it? I'm gonna guess nothing.
Sorry, I rather complain than just sit on my ass and bitch about how it's not as bad as others so why should I care.
QuoteHave some motherfucking integrity and vote for who you want to represent you!
They are not on the ballot, pal. The choice is tweedledum and tweedledumber.
In 2012 Gary Johnson...granted, a libertarian twit...did manage to get on the ballot in 48 states. He got less than 1% of the vote.
The Green Party running Jill Stein did far, far worse than Johnson.
Stop dreaming. The only way to do this is to do what the tea-baggers did. Take over one of the existing parties because so few people turn out for primary elections.
The problem there, obviously, is that it is the crazies who succeed in those efforts and if there is one thing this country does not need it is more "crazy."
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Poison Tree, getting any politician to think further than the next election is seemingly next to impossible.
Absolutely. It is part of why dealing with the debt is so hard. Even if some perfect plan fell from heaven--metaphorically speaking, though if it actually happened it would be a sure sign of god--it could not be a quick plan. You can't say "cut all government spending to 0, 50% tax increase, pay it off in two years". So let's say someone comes up with a (picking a number just to simplify the math) 24 year plan. In that time there will be, what, 12 elections for the house, every senate seat up for vote 4 times and 6 presidential elections (assuming my math is correct). You cannot honestly expect every politician to just sit on their hands that entire time. They will have to respond to crisis, pander to voters, ect, and, inevitably, would fuck up the pest laid plans.
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Ever think of running for office?
I have, but not very seriously. If I did I'd have to convince voters that "I'm an atheist who used to belong to a denomination some of you think is a cult" isn't the equivalent of eating a live baby during a campaign rally. Then I'd still need an ass-load of money, which would basically necessitate wedding myself to a major party (really only the Democrats: see previous point) and selling my soul to the same fund-raisers/big donors.
I once thought about trying to get my name on the ballot for school board just to see how many votes a random name with no advertising would get, but I chickened out.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Sorry, I rather complain than just sit on my ass and bitch about how it's not as bad as others so why should I care.
So, your answer is that you complain? That'll work, for sure.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Quote from: "Shiranu"Sorry, I rather complain than just sit on my ass and bitch about how it's not as bad as others so why should I care.
So, your answer is that you complain? That'll work, for sure.
Still better than complaining about people complaining.
If you don't like the way things are, work to change them. Run for office, or work to support someone who shares your views. Volunteer for a campaign, or an issue. Whining is just irritating, and accomplishes nothing. I wasn't complaining, I was calling you and the other whiners out on your bullshit.
QuoteI wasn't complaining, I was calling you and the other whiners out on your bullshit.
I wasn't complaining, I was just complaining that people aren't doing things the way I want them to.
:-k
Or like wise; we aren't complaining, we are just calling politicians out on their bullshit.
:rolleyes:
Semantics: It's only complaining if you do it; otherwise I am just "calling people out with no expectation of it doing jack-shit".
QuoteEvery election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
H. L. Mencken
Until one gets the private money out of the American system and ends the shameful practice of politicians having to go, hat in hand, to some rich bastard in order to run, there will be no improvement. In fact, things are getting worse by the day.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"It's clear to me that the only person here who gives a rat's ass about the color of the President's skin is josephpalazzo.
I've answered you in this thread: http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php? ... &start=135 (http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2452&start=135)
Yes, on that page you told us that a black person is only 3/5 of a person.
PRO: Obama, Iranian president speak by phone (//http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-iranian-president-speak-by-phone/2013/09/27/228f6ece-27af-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html?hpid=z3)
Quote"The very fact that this was the first communication between an American and Iranian president since 1979 underscores the deep mistrust between our countries," Obama said. "But it also indicates the prospect of moving beyond that difficult history."
CON: Is this a deception from Iran, will they continue to pursue their objective of developping a nuclear bomb?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"PRO: Obama, Iranian president speak by phone (//http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-iranian-president-speak-by-phone/2013/09/27/228f6ece-27af-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html?hpid=z3)
Quote"The very fact that this was the first communication between an American and Iranian president since 1979 underscores the deep mistrust between our countries," Obama said. "But it also indicates the prospect of moving beyond that difficult history."
CON: Is this a deception from Iran, will they continue to pursue their objective of developping a nuclear bomb?
It may well be, but apparently the Iranians have said that they want a deal in 6 months, which at least suggests that they are not simply stalling (or else that they are very close to their goal)
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"PRO: Obama, Iranian president speak by phone (//http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-iranian-president-speak-by-phone/2013/09/27/228f6ece-27af-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html?hpid=z3)
Quote"The very fact that this was the first communication between an American and Iranian president since 1979 underscores the deep mistrust between our countries," Obama said. "But it also indicates the prospect of moving beyond that difficult history."
CON: Is this a deception from Iran, will they continue to pursue their objective of developping a nuclear bomb?
It may well be, but apparently the Iranians have said that they want a deal in 6 months, which at least suggests that they are not simply stalling (or else that they are very close to their goal)
Right, what took place is not very clear. We are going to need more than words.
One of the accomplishments of the Nixon administration was opening up to China. Opening up to Iran may help put Obama in the history books for something other than his skin tone. It will be rough though, as many Iranians absolutely hate America. Still, I think it would be better to open up diplomatic relations with Iran, then to arbitrarily bomb them.
Many Iranian *politicians. From what I have seen the average Iranian still likes the United State.
Shiranu wrote:
QuoteMany Iranian *politicians. From what I have seen the average Iranian still likes the United State.
While it is true there are many Iranians who still like the US, there are opponents in Iran who do not want normalized diplomatic relations. I didn't make this up. I read it here:
//http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/world/middleeast/clashes-as-iranian-president-returns-to-tehran.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&
Some Iranians remember the coup which put the Shah in power. The coup was planned and executed by the CIA and the British. //http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
I can understand Iranian distrust of the US because of actions like this.
Obama is more or less, a centrist that wishes to appease the populace, while avoid stepping on anybodies toes for fear of setting off a dirty game of politics he'd rather avoid. It's true that he hasn't done anything much different than Bush in many areas, but this has more to do with the fact that military and corporate interests are running the show, and less to do with Obama or even the Congress.
I could go on about his failures and what not but it'd be pointless; you all know them. The reasons though that he is hated by the right is that he's not rolling over for them on command like Clinton would. The religious right-wingers and Alex Jone types are trying to take over the Republican party -- which they think will win with their policy. The reality of course is that they will never win another election as long as the current idiots are running the show.
The GOP noise machine has completely back fired and now all of the undecided voters are identifying the Republican party with FOXnews conspiracy types, and they want nothing to do with any of it. The right has damaged its reputation and wants to lash out at someone/something instead of taking the responsibility for the backwards views and dealing with it The old timers in the GOP seriously think that with enough time their message will convince enough people so they're really fucked, and the Dems are simply capitalizing on it all in a positive way for themselves.
The GOP is just trying to rail-road it's opponents black, white, or green in an attempt to re-gain power, hence all of the dirty tactics.
This thread.....
(//http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t651/smartzie/popcorn_zpsbbd51da7.gif) (//http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/smartzie/media/popcorn_zpsbbd51da7.gif.html)