PDA

View Full Version : Obama gives birth to some genuine hatred


jonathan7
08-11-2009, 07:50 AM
I was half asleep yesterday morning when some BBC voice from the ether declared that it had been discovered that some dogs were “as bright as children”. And my first addled thought was that the reverse implication — that some people were as dumb as animals — would come as little surprise to Barack Obama, as he attends to what a few impatient liberals obviously imagine is the easiest job in the world, the presidency of the United States. Over there, according to one American commentator writing at the weekend, “the stupid is accelerating”.

A bit of the stupid is made up of left-wing Democrats who search Mr Obama minutely — and almost hopefully — for signs of backsliding. But most of it comes from the Right; and what strange forms it takes. Such as the “birther” movement — the raft of websites, writers, fringe journalists and activists who have determined that President Obama is not the legal POTUS because, actually, far from having been born in the US state of Hawaii in August 1961, he was, in fact, given birth to in Kenya, Indonesia or anywhere else that today’s theory has a yen for.

So strange is this theory that it imagines the plot to falsify the President’s birth record was hatched before he was, thus explaining the otherwise terminally awkward placing in two Hawaii newspapers in 1961 of birth announcements of a son to the Obamas. Mr Obama is thus the foetal Manchurian candidate, although it might have been easier from the conspirators’ point of view, one imagines, to have allowed him actually to be born on US soil.

If only people were passionate in proportion to the plausibility of their opinions. Alas, not so. One recent viral YouTube video shows a town hall meeting on health in Delaware in which the veteran Republican Mike Castle is being yelled at by an apparently insane woman flourishing a birth certificate in a plastic bag, and demanding (1) that Mr Obama produce his, and (2) that everyone present recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Which, amazingly, instead of calling for an ambulance, they do.

The daftness gets dafter. The investigators are out there investigating and discovering that (under the headline “Obama ‘mama’: 15 days from birth to Seattle class”) Mr Obama’s mother may have enrolled in a course a fortnight after his birth. And you think, what are you saying here? That she’s not his mother? That his birthdate is different, for some unknown reason?

Or maybe that he wasn’t born at all, but left, like Moses, in a basket, on the waters of the Indian Ocean, before fetching up in Hawaii. One pompous ass, the CNN anchor and radio host Lou Dobbs, seems to buy this stuff and has called for Mr Obama to produce his original birth certificate, and a dozen Republican Congressman have lent legitimacy to “birtherism” by signing up to a Bill to require all future presidential candidates to produce the originals of their birth certificates.

This stuff is mad and bizarre, but there are other emanations that are scarier. Take what seems to be happening at many of the recent local town hall meetings called to discuss President Obama’s proposals on healthcare reform, which have attracted absurdly intemperate criticism from Republicans. I’ve watched a couple of these meetings online and seen, in both, organised attempts not to express an opinion forcefully but to barrack, to intimidate and to disrupt the discussion. From Austin, Texas, to Romulus, Michigan, speakers have been shouted down by people obviously there to prevent debate. Last Thursday in Tampa, Florida, there was violence when some protesters couldn’t get into the over-packed hall.

I don’t think I’m a sissy. I can take heckling and vituperation, and understand that sometimes people yell. Nor do I argue that the Left was always (or ever) fair to George W. Bush. Liberals invariably treat right-of-centre presidents as if they are morons. But looking at the early stages of the Obama presidency, and imagining what is to come, I think that I see the repeat of a pattern of how some on the American Right patently cannot bear the existence of a Democratic president.

The previous one, Bill Clinton, was enveloped — from before his first day in office — in a series of accusations of scandal that simply rose in volume: Whitewatergate, Troopergate, Travelgate, the accusation (made by supposedly serious journalists) that he had his friend Vince Foster, the White House counsel who committed suicide in July 1993, murdered. None of these accusations was substantiated, despite the £2.4 million spent on investigating and publishing them by the multimillionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, who told George magazine in 1999: “Listen, Clinton can order people done away with at his will ... God, there must be 60 people who have died mysteriously.”

All this eventually led to impeachment. But the Clintons had earlier faced a healthcare crisis too. In Carl Bernstein’s biography of Hillary Clinton, he describes her arrival in Seattle in 1994 to speak on health. There were more than 4,000 people present. “During her speech,” Bernstein recalls, “the catcalls, screaming and heckling drowned out much of her remarks. When she left the stage and got into a limouisine, hundreds of protesters surrounded the car. They were rabid with hatred.”

Why hatred? Why not “pregnant with disagreement”? Or “eloquent with dissent”? Why did — and does — a section of the American Right insist that its opponents are not just wrong, but actually illegitimate; not just mistaken, but anti-American? And why does this partisanship take such an unreasoning tone when their party is in opposition?

The right-wing writer David Brock, who later repented of his role as an anti-Clinton muckraker, wrote that Bill and Hillary “were made into a metaphor for all the social changes of the past 30 years that the right-wing base of the country hated”. And, of course, such resentment was easier to express when your own equivocating presidents (usually one of the Bushes) were not in power. Fear of any state encroachment is a big part of it, of course – and for some Obama represents a gallop in a socalist direction. But also there’s this: Republican administration or Democrat, American society has evolved and the country is now heading for a situation when non-whites will be in the majority in our life times.

It was an Obama conceit that his election had healed all divisions and that somehow Americans were more prepared for painless change. But all change is loss, and in the States the losers know how to hate.

From; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6790709.ece

It's rare that I read an article which I would say represents my opinion, but the above does a pretty good job of doing so.

So what do people think?

jrrtoken
08-11-2009, 08:31 AM
It's not very surprising; I figured that there would be some conservative hate machine stirring in the background, much like when Clinton was in office. Of there's the fact that Obama is BLACK that does stir up some people.

Mainly, though, I feel it's just ultra-conservative commentators that are stirring the pot, with their listeners who are foolish enough to believe everything that they say is an honest-to-God fact.

Jae Onasi
08-11-2009, 01:46 PM
I think it's a little simplistic--he's assuming, like too many more liberal writers, that the right wing has no reason to be angry, and therefore wht they''re doing is unreasonable. On top of that, he throws the race card into it, as if all ultra conservatives actually are hung up on that. They're not. In fact, the ultra-conservatives I talk to could care less about the color of his skin--they're highly concerned about what they see as a rush to socialism, however, and that has them spitting tacks.

Do some of the right wingers go overboard? Absolutely. Rush is ridiculous, and he loves stirring the pot. It gets him higher ratings. However, the Right has some legitimate concerns, and they feel like those concerns are getting swept under the rug by not only their elected officials, but also the 'mainstream' media. This is a big part of what's driving the anger, and a big reason why the ultra-conservatives like Rush and Ann Coulter are screaming.

Getting lost in that, however, are people who are more reasonable about expressing their concerns, like Charles Krauthammer and some of the other more moderate conservative writers and commentators. The Right feels right now like they're being completely ignored by their elected leaders--when you have Pelosi calling ultra conservative protesters at the town hall meetings 'Nazis'and Obama telling conservatives to 'be quiet' if they don''t like his health care plan, how should the Right feel? For the most part I agree with nationalizing health care, but I, especially as a doctor who will be working in the system, don't want to be told to 'shut up' if there are aspects of the plan with which I disagree, or worse, being told I'm somehow undemocratic. I helped elect Obama--and even if I didn't, as a citizan who will be living with whatever these few hundred people in Congress are going to be deciding for all of us, I DO want to express my opinion. It is my constitutional right as someone living in a democracy to express my opinion, and in the case of medical care, I feel like I have a responsibility to state my opinion not only for myself and family as a future user, but also for my profession and my patients. I do not want to be called a Nazi for dissenting or told to sit down and shut up.

The writer of the article is correctly identifying the anger, but I''d like to see him go more in depth to understand why these folks are so angry. The anger is just a symptom of a deeper problem, and the author missed that.

Gurges-Ahter
08-11-2009, 02:28 PM
I agree 100% with Jae, and I feel that the author failed to expand on a good point he had about half-way through the article.

Nor do I argue that the Left was always (or ever) fair to George W. Bush. Liberals invariably treat right-of-centre presidents as if they are morons.

I think a lot of today's criticism on Obama has a lot to do with the previous 6 years (I think the first 2 were relatively benign) criticism of Bush. It's just a media frenzy, and it's not going to change no matter who the president is (left, right, whatever). Bush received more unfair criticism than perhaps any president ever, and Obama is just next in line.

The part that bothers me is related to what Jae pointed out. Bush received tons of criticism but didn't react to it negatively - he just kept pursuing his goals - right or wrong. Obama basically tells us to eff-off if we don't like it.

Lord of Hunger
08-11-2009, 08:35 PM
To be frank Obama has made some huge mistakes so far:

1) His Cabinet - The fact that he hired so many members guilty of back taxes even got on my nerves.

2) Sotomayor - Her comment about a "wise" Latina being more capable than a white male should have forced Obama to drop her instantly. Whether it was racist or not (I personally don't care either way) doesn't matter, but it is so easy to put a spin on it.

3) Lack of Specifics on Health Care and Economic Policy - As inspiring as he is, he needs to stop selling us hope and give us actual price tags. How much is this going to cost exactly? How are you going to pay for it?

4) Having Congress write the Health Care bill - Biggest mistake of all. He should have designed his bill to begin with and submitted it through one of the Democrats in Congress rather than leave them to do something that they are bound to do poorly.

Darth Avlectus
08-11-2009, 09:10 PM
4) Having Congress write the Health Care bill - Biggest mistake of all. He should have designed his bill to begin with and submitted it through one of the Democrats in Congress rather than leave them to do something that they are bound to do poorly.

QFT and if I may add, he's not having much influence over Reid and Pelosi like many of us hoped he would.

I'm of the mind that I really don't give a flip about Obama, personally (though I really wish he would quit trying to spin the opposition's arguments a certain way based on a few embarrassing racist idiots). However, his team is what I have gripes with. Plus it looks rather suspicious when you try to rush a 1018 page HR bill requiring lawyers to interpret rather quickly through the senate. I don't blame anyone for being at least suspicious about it.

Jae Onasi
08-11-2009, 11:19 PM
To be frank Obama has made some huge mistakes so far:


4) Having Congress write the Health Care bill - Biggest mistake of all. He should have designed his bill to begin with and submitted it through one of the Democrats in Congress rather than leave them to do something that they are bound to do poorly.
He's doing it that way precisely because Bill and Hillary failed spectacularly when they tried to bypass Congress in the 90's in the way you're suggesting.

@GTA--I knew he wasn't going to have much if any influence over Pelosi, especially when he owes her for her work in delivering California to him in the election. Since Obama was only in the Senate for a few years, there was no way he could develop influence over Reid, either--he simply wasn't in the Senate long enough to create the kind of influence and connections that someone like LBJ had, and it's a bit of a disadvantage for Obama in that respect.

Q
08-12-2009, 12:12 AM
While I may disagree with his socialist policies and wild spending, I most certainly do not hate the president. He's our first African-American president, and while ideally this should not be an issue at all, it's a huge milestone for the country, and one that was long overdue. He also seems to be a stand-up guy, whereas Clinton was a slimeball (though an undeniably likeable slimeball :p).

As far as all of the protesting goes, I understand why people are doing it, but I'm quite content to sit back and let the stagflation speak for itself. :D

Lord of Hunger
08-12-2009, 01:48 AM
Another interesting fact: What they (Congress and the Media) don't tell everyone is that it would be far preferable to create a series of smaller reform bills rather than one giant bill. Having individual bills that deal with the individual aspects of our system that are messed up (like prohibiting companies from deny health insurance due to a preexisting condition) would allow for these problems to be quickly solved and for the points of debate (such as instituting a public option) to not stall the solutions that everyone agrees on. Instead Pelosi and the lot want to create a huge bill for everything and hype about how absolutely necessary it is so they can shove it through the system into law. While my opinion of the Republicans (whom I used to have some measure of trust in at one point) is now lower than the Earth's Core, my opinion of the Democrats is even worse.

Hell, this is another example of how the Legislative Branch of our government is untrustworthy.

True_Avery
08-12-2009, 04:33 AM
I've been trying my hardest to not post, but this post caught my eye too heavily so I have to respond.

that the right wing has no reason to be angry,
Well, first off I can only throw out the question of... what is the right wing in America?

Do they have a right to be angry? Sure...

and therefore what they're doing is unreasonable.
... but while I agree that instantly assuming it is unreasonable, I believe the article is pointing more towards the mass hatred than the facts behind them.

Maybe it is a "left" thing as you pointed out, but I've been seeing a hell of a lot of manipulation on the part of the "right wing" side of the news, like certain radio commentators and, in particular, Fox News.

The article is pointing less at good reasoning to be angry, and more at the fact that these events are happening under completely unreasonable circumstances.

So, is what they're doing unreasonable? I think so, yes. But only the ones this particular article is pointing out. Like, for example, the birther movement, and the current trouble with Health Care and these (dare I say it) idiots assuming that it is going to allow euthanasia, death panels, and so on and a bunch of other nonesense that is not even in the bill.

Information is, like it always has been, being manipulated by the 'media'. Who is the media? Lets just go with everyone, shall we? MSNBC to Fox News. Air America to Rush. Who is possibly the worst offender in this (in my opinion)?

Glenn Beck.

The article doesn't so much say that the entire right is wrong, but that the current state of the far right in American Politics is in the absurd, and gaining speed inter the territory of outright lies and manipulation in order to cause conflict, and possibly even entice riots at, say, the current townhall debates on Health Care.

Has the "left" done this? Sure. If it is a media outlet, it will damn well try to manipulate the watchers. But, as an independent, I take the stance that the "far right" media outlets are almost mad with the power they have over their viewers. I've seen MSNBC and CNN blatantly lie to me, but I see far more hatred and madness in the lies and commentary of the "right" outlet.

Does this mean I think everyone on the right is insane and unreasonable? No, but I agree with this article in saying that the right in the last few presidencies has gone too far. Rush, Glenn, Savage, O'Rielly, etc are dangerous to mindset of this country, and it is quite obvious that the manipulation of the truth has been leading to this outbreaks... not actual reasonable trouble with the issue. The reasonable ones aren't the ones making a scene at a debate and asking for Obama's birth certificate.

But, before I get called on it, I also think MSNBC commentators such as Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and Chris Matthews are dangerous to the country as well, but I do not think they are as crazy, nor do I think their manipulation -as- dangerous as many of the paranoid "right" listed above.

If anything, they are just more GarfieldJL's. They poison the name of the party they try to represent, and make the honest ones look insane. Except, unlike Garfield, they have primetime shows with rabidly loyal listeners.

And, I agree with the article in pointing out that the "far right" media outlets in this country go to almost insane levels of hatred, paranoia, and manipulation when a demcratic is president. Not to say the left doesn't, but I just think the "right" media does it more. If anything, I almost applaud the "left" media for their subtlety in their manipulation a lot of the time, while the right just blatantly says "he is destroying your America" so many times it might as well replace their breathing.

Is it justified?

You know, I don't think so. Twisting the truth and outright telling people that your grandparents will be euthanize if this bill passes is outright disgusting, and is deserving of their entire network being shut down, regardless of if it is MSNBC or Fox.


On top of that, he throws the race card into it, as if all ultra conservatives actually are hung up on that. They're not. In fact, the ultra-conservatives I talk to could care less about the color of his skin--they're highly concerned about what they see as a rush to socialism, however, and that has them spitting tacks.
Yet the news outlets seem to be fine with bringing race up, "reverse racism" and so on. No, this isn't just an ultra-conservative thing, but it is still in the media. Do the individuals care? I cannot really comment on something on that much of a subjective, person-to-person level, but I can say that I still see the race card being played by everyone in the media.

Do some of the right wingers go overboard? Absolutely. Rush is ridiculous, and he loves stirring the pot. It gets him higher ratings.
Re-read the article, as this is what he was pointing out. The article is focused on the pot-stirring going on, and those that actually let themselves be spoonfed this soup. These people have hatred for the president and the left, and it is being done unreasonably. To be fair, these people are getting what they know in lie/skew form, but personally I have no patience for people that naive.

However, the Right has some legitimate concerns, and they feel like those concerns are getting swept under the rug by not only their elected officials, but also the 'mainstream' media. This is a big part of what's driving the anger, and a big reason why the ultra-conservatives like Rush and Ann Coulter are screaming.
I can hardly call it being "swept under the rug" as these townhall meetings and so on, and the events of such, have been talked about on all stations from what I can see.

No, Ann and Rush are screaming because a Democrat is in the President's office, and being they are just crazy. Whether or not they are idiots I will never know, but they do stir the pot and people like Rush and Glenn especially know they have a fanbase that will literally listening and believing anything they say.

No. Rush and Ann and the like have been screaming for as long as they had a mic in front of them. Legitimate, worried conservatives and so on do not let themselves be spoonfed.

Is the left pushing these legitimate, worried citizens under the rug?

Yes, but in my personal opinion, the absolutely bat******** insane route that Fox and many other "right" outlets have taken has just made the "right" into a freaking joke. Almost as if GarfieldJL was put in charge, and then cloned himself and put into every chair on Fox&Friends and so on.

The legitmate "right" are being discredit and pushed under the rug by their own extremist members, who are now in control of their media. If I were a right leaning person, even leaning at a 45 degree angle, I'd be P***ED at Fox and so on for making my party into a laughingstock by letting people like Rush and Glenn speak for the entire party.

Getting lost in that, however, are people who are more reasonable about expressing their concerns, like Charles Krauthammer and some of the other more moderate conservative writers and commentators.
Too bad the commentators and the one's whom the more talkative of their party has been worshipping the past months are driving their credibility into the dirt.

The Right feels right now like they're being completely ignored by their elected leaders--when you have Pelosi calling ultra conservative protesters at the town hall meetings 'Nazis'
And O'Rielly did the same with the Democrats. To be fair, he is not an elected official, just a commentator who is paid to say outlandish things. Pelosi, in her position, made a damn stupid move

and Obama telling conservatives to 'be quiet' if they don''t like his health care plan, how should the Right feel?
I assume you are referring to his remarks on those who drove our Health Care into the dirt to stop complaining about change. Or, you could be referring to his remarks at the beginning of his speeches trying to correct the **** the media outlets have been lieing to the people about on Health Care.

I'll let you confirm which one.

How should

somehow undemocratic.
Welcome to how the "left" has felt for the past 8 years. Is it fair? No, but in some ways it is. I almost want to believe that the "left" is just taking potshots at the "right" for revenge for commentary over the last 8 years, especially post 9/11 BS.

The fact that the "right" media seemed pretty insistant, especially after 9/11, that saying anything bad about the President was anti-american... yeah, they can go screw themselves.

I helped elect Obama--and even if I didn't, as a citizan who will be living with whatever these few hundred people in Congress are going to be deciding for all of us, I DO want to express my opinion. It is my constitutional right as someone living in a democracy to express my opinion, and in the case of medical care, I feel like I have a responsibility to state my opinion not only for myself and family as a future user, but also for my profession and my patients. I do not want to be called a Nazi for dissenting or told to sit down and shut up.
Again, not talking about you. Personally, I think the commentator's currently manipulating those on the far-right are Nazi-like in their tactics. If you don't like the word Nazi, then lets just stick with manipulative. But, frankly, the idiots that are "expressing" their opinions at these debates need to shut the hell up so people like you can get a word in, and get those words on the news instead of hours of talking about these far-rights standing up and reciting the American flag like a bunch of neo-nazi fools.

Don't put yourself over the same line as the idiots this article is talking about. You are a reasonable person capable of debating with someone while these people are just... well, even though I find the word appauling I might as well use it: sheep. They are sheep. Children being spoonfed what to believe.

These people who, instead of just being annoyed with them, go so far as to actually call their opponents unamerican and variants of just because they don't believe in the same thing. These idiots who say "get out of my country" like it somehow exists because of them.

You are not. Are you one of the people standing up, demanding his birth certificate? Are you standing up, literally yelling at the people on stage and not allowing them a word in edgewise?

No. You are a reasonable person. This article, Pelosi's remarks, nor even Obama's remarks are not aimed at you. Unfortunately, your party is currently digging its own grave and prepping the coffin.

The writer of the article is correctly identifying the anger, but I''d like to see him go more in depth to understand why these folks are so angry. The anger is just a symptom of a deeper problem, and the author missed that.
The reason you are angry is reason. The reason people mobbed clinton's limo, are yelling at the Democratic speeches as far back as the beginning of the election, and so on is because of pot stirring crazies.

The deeper problem is exactly what the article addressed. The "right" media has currently lost is freakin mind and has shot a massive hole into its own hull under the idea that it'll make the boat float better.

Again, to all of you on this board who identify yourself as "right", I have no quarrel with you. I have the same quarrel as the author of this article has: the current state of our media, both right and left, has been insane and, now that a Democrat has been elected... the "right" media outlets have gone over the line and are manipulating people with lies in order to make their waning, ever shrinking extremist part of the "party" look bigger.

Thats all it is. That is all any of this is. The "right" media, right now, is simply shaking the pot and trying to get protectors to do outlandish things in order to make the anti-obama movement look bigger than it actually is.

And its working.

If you want any sources out of me, all I ask if you find the Fox News video of a crowd at a debate yelling "we are afraid of obama, and you should be too".

To further my point, I'll just repost a piece from this article:
Why hatred? Why not “pregnant with disagreement”? Or “eloquent with dissent”? Why did — and does — a section of the American Right insist that its opponents are not just wrong, but actually illegitimate; not just mistaken, but anti-American? And why does this partisanship take such an unreasoning tone when their party is in opposition?
I rest my case.

Is Obama making mistakes? Is the right all crazy?

That isn't the point of the article, and this thread seems to have already gone off topic. The point of the article is that the media has gone insane, and that these people, regardless of party affilation or reason behind their arguments, are just fodder for a media that is spoonfeeding them lies to the point of riot.

So, I ask the same thing the article asks:

Is this only a right thing? Why, when a Democrat is in office, are they not only wrong, but illegitimate? Not just mistaken, but anti-american?

The part that bothers me is related to what Jae pointed out. Bush received tons of criticism but didn't react to it negatively - he just kept pursuing his goals - right or wrong. Obama basically tells us to eff-off if we don't like it.
Like with Jae, I'll have to ask exactly what quote you are pointing out because, frankly, when you are being called out for not being born in America and have people legitimately believing their grandparents will be killed by Obama... I think he has more than enough right to tell these people to shut the **** up. I'm actually impressed with a President who is willing to fight, to some extent, against the media as I think its been allowed to abuse its freedom for a little too long.

But, again, I recall the Bush administration and the "right" telling me to eff-off as well so, frankly, I say "welcome to the other side of the room" to the "right". Sorry if it is dusty after 8 years. Luckily, they'll be allowed to do the same in 4-8 years so, really, they can tough it out till then.

------------

I just needed to get all that off my chest, so I'll be disappearing again for awhile.

Jae Onasi
08-12-2009, 06:11 AM
No offense taken at all. I don't disagree that Rush and Coulter have gone way overboard and the author has a right to call them on that. I don't watch Beck so I can't say much about him--I saw him once or twice and decided he wasn't my cup of tea. I wish I didn't have to hear Coulter, but she's on O'Reilly a lot, and I do watch him with some frequency, because I think he's tapped into what the ultra-right is feeling. Rush I listen to a few times a month just to see what he's up to this time, though I'm usually rolling my eyes after about 3 minutes. Calling out the right-wing media for going overboard is nothing new, however. That's been a liberal sport for some time, just like Hannity and Rush calling out Air America and NPR has been conservative sport for them.

I don't disagree with his analysis that the right is angry, I just don't think the author went deep enough to understand why they're angry, and I would have liked to see a little more of that analysis--that was my chief point. It read to me like it was another "oh, there's the crazy right-wingers, all up in arms again". He doesn't address their deep-seated fear of socialism to any significant degree, and they fear nationalized health care in particular as a huge sign of socialism, which is why I brought it up as an example. It's also one of the things the ultra-right is hammering hard right now.

The Obama comment I was referring to was when he told people opposed to health care to just shut up. I was actually surprised that he said it, since he's usually careful with how he words things. I _think_ he was meaning the far right shooting its mouth off without giving facts, but he didn't clarify it enough. My other thought was "You're President of a democracy, you're going to get criticism, deal with it." Pelosi obviously took that 'shut up' ball and ran too far with it, but I think she's just bat-crazy anyway. Unfortunately, the bat happens to be Speaker of the House at the same time so I have to pay attention to what she says.

My voice on health care may indeed be lost in all the noise, but I just write to my Congressman and Senators and hope they at least look at it. I'm very concerned at the speed with which they're trying to push legislation through--it's a huge bill and it's not getting much debate at all, but you're right--that's getting off topic and needs its own thread. If someone doesn't start a health care thread I'll start one later today.

Q
08-12-2009, 07:02 AM
Yes, but in my personal opinion, the absolutely bat******** insane route that Fox and many other "right" outlets have taken has just made the "right" into a freaking joke.
Agreed.
These people who, instead of just being annoyed with them, go so far as to actually call their opponents unamerican and variants of just because they don't believe in the same thing. These idiots who say "get out of my country" like it somehow exists because of them.
I'm left wondering exactly what certain people expect when they repeatedly, in public and in private "mock patriots" and express a desire to see their own country fail. :¬:

At a loss, here. :giveup:

Gurges-Ahter
08-12-2009, 10:45 AM
But, again, I recall the Bush administration and the "right" telling me to eff-off as well so, frankly, I say "welcome to the other side of the room" to the "right". Sorry if it is dusty after 8 years. Luckily, they'll be allowed to do the same in 4-8 years so, really, they can tough it out till then.

Funny you say this - I say the exact same thing for Obama-apologists. Bush received as much (and probably more) unwarranted criticism during his presidency than Obama has endured thus far in his term, but it was more fashionable to hate Bush so most just accepted it as fact. Now it's the left's turn to take some abuse, and it's being chalked off as irrational, extremist right wingers taking pot-shots. While it might be just that, it was for Bush as well when he was in office. It's just the sad state that the media exists in, and I don't see it changing for any president any time soon, whether right or left.

The sad part is that I'm really a moderate for the most part - I've voted both Republican and Democratic in the past, based on the candidates - but the extreme (and mostly unwarranted) anti-Bush sentiment over the past 5 years in addition to the "whining" now demonstrated by the left-siders, now that it's their turn to take some abuse, has made me very standoffish to the left-wing. I'd rather stay neutral and only listen to issues and candidate worthiness, but I'm having a hard time doing it.

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
08-12-2009, 12:08 PM
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!!!!!!!!!! *cough cough*
thank you

Hallucination
08-12-2009, 02:09 PM
Just to add some fuel to the fire, Obama refuses to properly eat his Liberty Sandwich. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE)

Litofsky
08-12-2009, 05:32 PM
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!!!!!!!!!! *cough cough*
thank you

...are you seriously saying that after some of the posts in this thread, or is my sarcasm detector failing?

Te Je'karta Mand'alor
08-12-2009, 06:40 PM
it was joking but those are my actual thoughts on him

jrrtoken
08-12-2009, 06:50 PM
it was joking but those are my actual thoughts on himCool, bro; I'd like to see your SUPRE SEKRIT socialist conspiracy evidence in the next session of Congress. :patriot:

Totenkopf
08-12-2009, 11:35 PM
I think that what he's noticed is how vituperatively partisan politics in America can be (nevermind other countries) at times. We all heard how Reagan was going to blow up the world and what a freakin idiot he was b/c the left didn't like where he was going. Bush, we were told, conspired to blow up the World Trade Centers and Pentagon b/c he wanted to start WW3 and then blew up the levies in NO b/c he didn't like black people. Naturally, Bush 41 started the Gulf War by suckering SH into invading Kuwait to give us a pretext to "steal" mideast oil. Only inevitable that Clinton and now Obama would be the targets of claims that their supporters felt were wildly unfounded.

Funny thing about the birther controversey is that it comes from w/in the Democratic party itself, specifically the primary season (much like the "Barack the magic negro" phrase). The fact that BO won't end the "foolishness" (and didn't) by giving permission to release his birth certificate only plays into the conspiracy. Frankly, it is likely he will refuse to b/c he'll see it as an angle from which to continue to try to deligitimize a faction of his detractors by marginalizing them as crazy.

Another problem with the people currently running the US govt is that we're told it's on the verge of being broke and these fools only want to spend more money and seize ever greater amounts of power in order to "breathe life" into the very economy they're actually choking to death with myriad restrictions and ever higher taxes. Many people fear that the govt has gone off the deep end into fantasy land and that they'll wreck the country with their reckless embrace of discredited Keynsian ideas that might lead to a serious economic crash/hyperinflation. The wearying parade of endless emergencies that the govt is using to transform society while stifling debate about the direction it's heading is yet another sourse of agitation.

I'd have to agree that the analysis is a bit lacking. It seems to paint most of the opposition (on either side depending on whose in power at the moment) as w/o merit or substance and overlooks the main reasons that people often differ with their leaders. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, why everyone usually knows about the conspiracy stuff, as the media is driven by an unhealthy appetite for sensationalism (a trait it shamelessly blames on the population at large).

Tommycat
08-13-2009, 03:39 AM
...but the extreme (and mostly unwarranted) anti-Bush sentiment over the past 5 years...

You forgot "Selected not Elected" and "He's not MY president" for the entirety of his first term. The number of people blaming him for 9/11 (Conspiracy theorists) which still goes on. Hey, why didn't the article go into THAT looney leftist thing that occurred during the Bush presidency. That has to be about as silly as the birthers theories...

The Right in the US is angry. The reasons are as varied as the reasons the left is happy with Obama. Sure mouthpieces become nice caricatures to poke at and call us loons by, but many of us have our rational reasons.

Take healthcare for instance:
I like health care. BUT I feel that on a national level it is too much of a burden on the taxpayers. It also becomes a huge bureaucracy that once implimented will only balloon out of control making it an even greater burden on our country. I think it would be something better handled on a state by state basis. So Yeah I'm angry about that.

As for the whole race card stuff...
Which party had the first African American Secretary of State?...Joint Chiefs? Senator(actually the first TWO)? Representative?
As much as the Left likes to paint us as racists, it's just not true. It's not fair to keep painting us as such. Hell every Republican I know would have EASILY voted for Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice. So blaming our dislike of Obama on that is just completely off the mark. Heck Michael Steele is the current head of the Republican Party.

mimartin
08-13-2009, 03:18 PM
:migraine: Just how do you explain Bush's 90% approval rating during his first term?

Historical Bush Approval Ratings (http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm)

Bush had the country and world support in his hands, but his policies are what made him unpopular. George W Bush did cure me of voting republican ever again.

Take healthcare for instance:
I like health care. BUT I feel that on a national level it is too much of a burden on the taxpayers. As opposed to the burden now only being on those that pay insurance premiums.


@Gurges-Ahter - Not directed at you, but anyone that believes Bush was treated unfairly. With a 90% approval rating, there are more than a few lefties supporting him at that time. There was a time after 9/11 that even the media did not criticized the Administration for fear of being labeled un-American.

Gurges-Ahter
08-13-2009, 03:47 PM
:migraine: Just how do you explain Bush's 90% approval rating during his first term?

Not sure if this was directed at me - I stated that the last 5 years were the worst part of it for Bush, and that the first 2 years were relatively benign.

Totenkopf
08-13-2009, 06:01 PM
:migraine: Just how do you explain Bush's 90% approval rating during his first term?

"9-11". He didn't maintain 90% his whole first term anyway. No president does. Your graph clearly demonstrates that the 90% approval quickly dissipated.


Bush had the country and world support in his hands, but his policies are what made him unpopular. George W Bush did cure me of voting republican ever again.

Really? B/c Clinton/Gore, Carter and Obama (as well as the radical lefties controlling the modern dem party guarantee that I'll NEVER vote democrat barring major changes in that party. ;) I do agree with you that Bush made some big mistakes during his tenure, though we may differ on what some of them were in the end.


@Gurges-Ahter - Not directed at you, but anyone that believes Bush was treated unfairly. With a 90% approval rating, there are more than a few lefties supporting him at that time. There was a time after 9/11 that even the media did not criticized the Administration for fear of being labeled un-American.

And now the media (or the "mainstream" portion of it) has come full circle and suggests that anyone not on board with BO is un-American. Funny, that.. or is it? :raise:

Darth333
08-13-2009, 07:49 PM
Really? B/c Clinton/Gore, Carter and Obama (as well as the radical lefties controlling the modern dem party [...]) I don't personally agree with everything Obama does (auto bailout for example...and the Canadian gov is as guilty) but...Radical lefties? How so? :eyeraise: (*spills coffee*) All of those who you just named are still considered quite in the center (if not slightly to the right) just here in several parts of Canada.

Higher taxes? As to what I've heard and read (correct me if I'm wrong) the initial intent was people making more than $250K would pay a small additional percentage on the excedent of $250k... (on the first 250K everyone pays the same according to salary level - I imagine the whole is subject to applicable deductions, right? ....an xtra 3% on the excedent of $250000k for someone who makes 255000k under that policy is what... $150? Peanuts if you ask me unless you make several billions. At that salary level, it won't stop me from buying "that" car and even less from eating...I won't even really see the *** difference...and if I do, it means I have far bigger problems...living in an organized society implies some concessions for the general interest). Now, it maybe a little higher for everyone too but someone's got to pay for that debt and inherited s*** too...

As for health care, funny, there was an article yesterday in the francophone papers saying that 85% Canadians were in favor of keeping a public funded health system (I'll try to check English language papers to link it here - even sexchange surgery is "free" :p ). I don't know whether to laugh or cry almost every time I see comments concerning the Canadian health care system in US media.

You don't want to see the caricatures I was getting in my e-mail from all around the world (including clients) when Bush was re-elected...he proved to be totally ignorant of foreign politics and mentality. The perfect example of US hegemony. Complete disregard towards any other system, culture, history, mentality or whatever.

mimartin
08-13-2009, 08:47 PM
"9-11". He didn't maintain 90% his whole first term anyway. No president does. Your graph clearly demonstrates that the 90% approval quickly dissipated.I find it funny that someone unjustly crucified could get a 90% approval ranking no matter the circumstance. People on the left did not root for Bush to fail. He did that on his own. I did not root for him to fail. I was stupid enough to vote for him. Compassionate conservative sounded good to me. :rolleyes:

Yea, I really hated the Clinton years. A prosperous economy, low unemployment, and shrinking national debt really is a downer after awhile.

Totenkopf
08-13-2009, 10:50 PM
I don't personally agree with everything Obama does (auto bailout for example...and the Canadian gov is as guilty) but...Radical lefties? How so? :eyeraise: (*spills coffee*) All of those who you just named are still considered quite in the center (if not slightly to the right) just here in several parts of Canada.

(*Fears your part of Canada is waaaay to the left* :p) Actually, what I'm referring to is that the democrat party skews too far to the left for my tastes and consequently so do its choices for the presidency. I'm sure all three of them would likely also be considered center-left/center-right by the marxists that ran Cuba, the USSR and GB's Labor Party. :D But I digress. Problem is likely that the American public isn't as to the left as Canada or Europe, so our perceptions of "left" vs "right" are going to be colored by that. In the case of Obama, I look at the many people who've wielded an influence over his thinking and that are in his circles and decidedly don't see centrists.


Higher taxes? As to what I've heard and read (correct me if I'm wrong) the initial intent was people making more than $250K would pay a small additional percentage on the excedent of $250k... (on the first 250K everyone pays the same according to salary level - I imagine the whole is subject to applicable deductions, right? ....an xtra 3% on the excedent of $250000k for someone who makes 255000k under that policy is what... $150? Peanuts if you ask me unless you make several billions. At that salary level, it won't stop me from buying "that" car and even less from eating...I won't even really see the *** difference...and if I do, it means I have far bigger problems...living in an organized society implies some concessions for the general interest). Now, it maybe a little higher for everyone too but someone's got to pay for that debt and inherited s*** too...

Part of the problem with the whole $250K figure is that it became a sliding one depending on who was doing the talking and to whom they were doing it. Still, and it may surprise you, but I support means testing and am not in principle against removing the FICA cap. B/c, while the top earning people pay more than twice a % of income taxes vs their share of the revenue, I figure that if a guy draws a salary (not total compensation mind you as that might involve capital gains) of $500K to $2+mil/yr, that person should have to pay the same FICA rate as the schmuck earning a mere $25-50K/year. That Congress would've wasted that money too is secondary at the moment.



As for health care, funny, there was an article yesterday in the francophone papers saying that 85% Canadians were in favor of keeping a public funded health system (I'll try to check English language papers to link it here - even sexchange surgery is "free" :p ). I don't know whether to laugh or cry almost every time I see comments concerning the Canadian health care system in US media.

Ditto complaints about America. Claims that the US system is only 37th or so in the eyes of WHO mean nothing b/c of it's infatuation w/nationalized health care systems. Don't know about you, but I'd rather receive care in America than some of the 3rd world countries that beat it out according to the WHO. Also, polls here indicate that a similiar % of Americans are happy or content with their current private coverage.



You don't want to see the caricatures I was getting in my e-mail from all around the world (including clients) when Bush was re-elected...he proved to be totally ignorant of foreign politics and mentality. The perfect example of US hegemony. Complete disregard towards any other system, culture, history, mentality or whatever.

I can imagine, but sure, if you still have some of them send them to me in pm if you'd like. I doubt they'd be worse than anything I've already seen. Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced he didn't understand foreign politics so much as that he didn't make them manifest in his decision making process.


"9-11". He didn't maintain 90% his whole first term anyway. No president does. Your graph clearly demonstrates that the 90% approval quickly dissipated.

I find it funny that someone unjustly crucified could get a 90% approval ranking no matter the circumstance. People on the left did not root for Bush to fail. He did that on his own. I did not root for him to fail. I was stupid enough to vote for him. Compassionate conservative sounded good to me.

Yea, I really hated the Clinton years. A prosperous economy, low unemployment, and shrinking national debt really is a downer after awhile.

:raise: Hmm.......no one on the left wished to see Bush fail? You'll pardon me for not believing that. ;) As I recall a loud chorus of leftists constantly polluted the airwaves (Constitutionally their right) with claims that he wasn't even their president. I'm sure that when FDR finally went to war w/Japan and Germany he probably had higher approval ratings from even his opponents. Only natural that Bush got high ratings initially for his initial rhetoric. However, it was merely a snapshot of his 8 years and didn't last long. Frankly, compassionate conservative sounded alarmingly fuzzy and borderline democrat to me.. But, like you I imagaine, I voted for the lesser of two percieved evils.

As to Clinton.....amazing how he pulled an "economic miracle" out of his hat w/o any help.:rolleyes::xp:

Tommycat
08-13-2009, 11:37 PM
As opposed to the burden now only being on those that pay insurance premiums.
No, as opposed to STATES deciding for themselves if they want to add a health care system to their budget. I have no problem with individual states providing health care. Not supporting a national health care system does not equate out to "screw the poor and uninsured." I just see it as overkill.

The Fed is too clumbsy and inefficient. Think about it like this.... Would you want all hospitals run like the VA hospitals?

Jae Onasi
08-13-2009, 11:44 PM
The only problem with that is a situation like what we're seeing in WI. IL isn't paying their Medicaid bills, so a lot of providers have to stop taking it. We're seeing a huge influx of people moving into the border counties of WI just to get onto WI Medicaid, and it's putting a strain on our system as a result. If some states had full coverage and others didn't, the states providing full coverage would see an influx of people with very high-cost health problems who can't get coverage anywhere else.

I still think they should just expand Medicare (not Medicaid, which sucks for coverage) to everyone. Yes, the cost would go up for all of us, and yes, it would have to be fully funded, but it's a system that's already in place, it pays pretty decently (though some would argue otherwise), and we docs understand it.

El Sitherino
08-14-2009, 12:01 AM
The truth is that there are false issues being created by agenda pushers on all sides, many quite possibly working together in order to exploit their bases. Politicians, political commentators, they don't care about the truth because it doesn't suit their ability to make gain. CNN only exists to make FOX News more money and vice versa, they all share each others interested parties.

By and large people are idiots and refuse to look into something further for themselves, all these people yelling about America becoming socialist are rather ignorant about what actually constitutes socialism and are just rallying behind a side familiar to them in yet another "us vs. them" scenario. People feel better when they think they're on a side in a fight because they have a purpose to do other things they otherwise probably wouldn't do, they're eager to please and take all opportunities to do so without any pre-planning. It doesn't matter if we get a master linguist in the White House, so long as people are so simple minded as to think words can only mean one thing, a president will always stir a pot with something they say.

mimartin
08-14-2009, 12:49 AM
States do a wonderful job of being financial responsible, just look at California.

Not supporting a national health care system does not equate out to "screw the poor and uninsured." I just see it as overkill.Never wrote or implied it did. I wrote that the current systems screws those responsible and those that can afford insurance today. It also screws those that the big insurance industry describes as uninsurable.

Countries with Universal Health Care

Argentina
Austria
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Cuba
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Oman
Portugal
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Spain
Sweden
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Ukraine
United Kingdom

Even Afghanistan and Iraq have universal health care that is being provided by American tax payers.

Yet, in 2002 U.S. spends more on heath care than any other country. U.S. citizens spent $5,267. per capita on health care while Switzerland spent $3,446. per capita.

Seems we should get more bang for our bucks. (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2004/May/Experts-Agree-on-First-Set-of-International-Health-Care-Quality-Indicators--U-S--Spends-Most--But-Qu.aspx)


Infant Mortality Rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country.

1. Singapore 2.31
2. Bermuda 2.46
3. Sweden 2.75
4. Japan 2.79
5. Hong Kong 2.92
6. Macau 3.22
7. Iceland 3.23
8. France 3.47
9. Finland 3.47
10. Anguilla 3.52
11. Norway 3.58
12. Malta 3.75
13. Andorra 3.76
14. Czech Republic 3.79
15. Germany 3.99
16. Switzerland 4.18
17. Spain 4.21
18. Israel 4.22
19. Slovenia 4.25
20. Liechtenstein 4.25
21. South Korea 4.26
22. Denmark 4.34
23. Austria 4.42
24. Belgium 4.44
25. Guernsey 4.47
26. Luxembourg 4.56
27. Netherlands 4.73
28. Jersey 4.73
29. Australia 4.75
30. Portugal 4.78
31. United Kingdom 4.85
32. New Zealand 4.92
33. Monaco 5.00
34. Wallis and Futuna 5.02
35. Canada 5.04
36. Ireland 5.05
37. Greece 5.16
38. San Marino 5.34
39. Taiwan 5.35
40. Isle of Man 5.37
41. Italy 5.51
42. European Union 5.72
43. Cuba 5.82
44. United States 6.26

You have to be kidding me Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the U.S. according to the CIA’s website. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html)

Tommycat
08-14-2009, 01:07 AM
Those numbers can be skewed quite a bit depending on your agenda... Quite frankly it has more to do with culture than medical availability. DC has a free healthcare plan available yet has an infant mortality rate in the 14 per 1000 range.

Lord of Hunger
08-14-2009, 01:20 AM
I love how the left keeps bringing up Universal Health Care as the end all solution to our problems. Has anyone considered the fact that Universal Health Care might not be suitable to the USA considering that the US is far bigger than a lot of other countries in population? Sure, China can pull it off...with our money AND theirs combined.

Private insurance corporations are not the problem. It's the fact that they can deny people insurance based on stuff like preexisting conditions that's the problem. Even with everyone paying taxes there is a limit to what the government can do.

And while there should be public options to compete with the private ones, why should those options come from the Federal Government? Again, we are moving away from Federalism, the system that makes this country great. We have to have the Federal Government handle everything when they are supposed to be dealing with issues of commerce, foreign affairs, and maintaining infrastructure. Once the states are back on their feet, let them each offer their own varying systems of healthcare, education, and social policy, and people can move to wherever has the options they like the most. If Oregon wants universal health care, let them. If Texas wants private insurance, they should go for it. Why do we need a single standard? Isn't the beauty of America the fact that there is diversity?

mimartin
08-14-2009, 01:26 AM
Those numbers can be skewed quite a bit depending on your agenda... Quite frankly it has more to do with culture than medical availability. DC has a free healthcare plan available yet has an infant mortality rate in the 14 per 1000 range.Talking about attempting to skew the facts, the only people that qualify for DC Healthy Families Insurance Program (http://app.doh.dc.gov/services/healthy_families/index.shtm)are DC Healthy Families covers children, adolescents under age 19 who live alone, pregnant women, and parents/guardians.
Has anyone considered the fact that Universal Health Care might not be suitable to the USA considering that the US is far bigger than a lot of other countries in population? Yea, we are way too big.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/healthcareworldbig.jpg

Tommycat
08-14-2009, 02:27 AM
Talking about attempting to skew the facts, the only people that qualify for DC Healthy Families Insurance Program (http://app.doh.dc.gov/services/healthy_families/index.shtm)are

I fail to see how those requirements would negatively impact infant mortality. Neonatal care is available yet the infant mortality rate is much higher than places that don't. Which as I was pointing out shows that infant mortality would still be high because of the culture rather than availability of health care.

Totenkopf
08-14-2009, 04:41 AM
States do a wonderful job of being financial responsible, just look at California.

I'll see you and raise you the federal govt. Last I checked, even CA wasn't in the hole $8+ trillion. :xp:


Never wrote or implied it did. I wrote that the current systems screws those responsible and those that can afford insurance today. It also screws those that the big insurance industry describes as uninsurable.

The solution, however, is NOT to raze the current system to the ground and reinvent the wheel, but rather to incentivize "big insurance" to cover pre-existing conditions and pursue a parallel track of massive tort reform. Wait.... given how much the trial lawyers give to the democrats, that ain't likely to happen anytime soon.:rolleyes: Even a "public option" is bad b/c you can't compete w/the federal govt when it's fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer seems like a quaint concept to the govt. They'll merely charge artificially low premiums and then force tax payer bailouts of the system when they run into trouble. I didn't find BO's example of the USPS vs UPS & Fedex to be an inspired choice. First, it was a very imperfect comparison and second, given the >$7 bil shortfall of the USPS, doesn't do much to make one comfortable with the idea of govt control....even limited as in the case of the USPS.



Yet, in 2002 U.S. spends more on heath care than any other country. U.S. citizens spent $5,267. per capita on health care while Switzerland spent $3,446. per capita.

Seems we should get more bang for our bucks. (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2004/May/Experts-Agree-on-First-Set-of-International-Health-Care-Quality-Indicators--U-S--Spends-Most--But-Qu.aspx)

Yeah, well that's not too surprising. Look at how much $$ is thrown per capita at education in this country and then where we rank globally. Obviously, throwing $$ at a problem isn't the solution.

mimartin
08-14-2009, 09:02 AM
Obviously, throwing $$ at a problem isn't the solution.Never said it was. Throwing money at the problem is what we do now. Only now we are throwing only the money of a select few at it. If an uninsured show up at an emergency room they are not turned away for no insurance. They are treated. The health care provider does not eat the cost. If they did they would go out of business. The cost of treating the uninsured is passed on to the insured. Then the insurance companies passes that cost on to the premium payers. So now only those responsible enough to purchase health insurance are throwing money at the problem.

I took an ambulance ride last year. First time, I have ever called an ambulance for myself. Two months later I got a bill for $3000 for a two block ride. I walked down the stairs and got in the ambulance myself. They did no test beyond checking my heart rate and the ride was less than a mile (yes, I pay city ambulance tax for my business). My insurance company paid $1000 (my deductible and co-pay were already paid during my overnight stay in the hospital). That left me with a bill for $2000 for a 2 block taxi ride.

My stepdad, who was dying of cancer at the time, also took a ambulance ride that month. He was covered by Medicare and a Medicare supplement. He was only billed $750.00 for a 2 mile ambulance ride. I also assure you they did more for him than checking his heart rate.

Which as I was pointing out shows that infant mortality would still be high because of the culture rather than availability of health care. Documented proof?

You also understand that prenatal care begins before the pregnancy? If someone has a condition and it is left untreated until they know they are pregnant to qualify for insurance of last resort, then the fetus early development could be subject to that condition.

Totenkopf
08-14-2009, 09:18 AM
Never said it was.....

Actually, that statement wasn't aimed at you. More an observation that spending lots of money doesn't guarantee great results. I think that many, if not most, people agree that the system isn't perfect. As in many things, the disagreement is over how to remedy the problems that plague it.

Darth Avlectus
08-14-2009, 11:14 AM
States do a wonderful job of being financial responsible, just look at California.

Oh yeah, HA-HA. Very funny, Texan-boy. :dozey: (Don't let that huge hat yer wearin' blow off in the wind! :xp:)

Well, you are a bit correct. Largely b/c we've had governor after governor that was a either #$%^ing moron if not a greedy treacherous swine. Took a sharp turn with Gray Davis, Ahnuld's predecessor. Davis was recalled. In spite of currently having a "republican" in office, the state still manages to remain largely far-left. However the money problems have been growing and worsening since long before this.

I'll tell ya what though, we, CA, used to be one of the biggest economies alone. Dag-nabbit! :fist:

mimartin
08-14-2009, 11:44 AM
However the money problems have been growing and worsening since long before this.
I’m of the opinion that being careless and downright criminal with other people’s money (tax payer money) is an equal opportunity thing. The left does it, but so does the right. See the national debt under a Republican Congress control with a Republican President as an example of the right doing the same thing. I’m a financial conservative, but neither party represents me.

So my only question is what I want them wasting our money on.

Lord of Hunger
08-14-2009, 04:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRK_Xw1KG9U

Watch and learn that the whole Democrat vs. Republic system is BS. :D

Q
08-14-2009, 05:07 PM
Well, we've got a Democratic president, so now all we need is a Republican-controlled congress and we'll end up with a budget surplus like we had in the '90s.

So, here's hoping that the Democrat-controlled congress falls flat on its face and gets voted out in 2010. :D

jrrtoken
08-14-2009, 05:50 PM
So, here's hoping that the Democrat-controlled congress falls flat on its face and gets voted out in 2010. :DHere, here; I'm getting quite tired of the ardently unamusing Pelosi-Reid Consortium. :¬:

Lord of Hunger
08-14-2009, 07:36 PM
Yes, replacing one group of absolutely corrupt people with another group of equally corrupt people in yet another election where we give them lots of money and beg them to do things for us when they don't even care about our welfare makes a lot of sense.

Darth Avlectus
08-14-2009, 08:42 PM
I’m of the opinion that being careless and downright criminal with other people’s money (tax payer money) is an equal opportunity thing.

I agree.

The left does it, but so does the right. See the national debt under a Republican Congress control with a Republican President as an example of the right doing the same thing.
Oh I never said that republicans were any more innocent of that charge. Thank you for your forthright honesty, though.

I’m a financial conservative, but neither party represents me.

That trait is rare amongst elected officials nowadays. That in mind, I'm just not sure how the feds are going to do any better than the states, either.

(BTW, that's very refreshing to know about you--I thought there was some kind of resonance about your posts that I liked. :cheers:)

So my only question is what I want them wasting our money on.

Well, I don't know of any state that is any more "green conscious" ad nauseum than CA. I'd like some skepticism towards some of these so-called 'energy saver' or "greenpack" devices before we would even think about subsidizing them for consumers. To start at least.


Here, here; I'm getting quite tired of the ardently unamusing Pelosi-Reid Consortium. :¬:

You'll be delighted to know that at least Reid has pissed off a lot of people in NV and they're about to cut his legs out from under him.

Pelosi...:-/ I'm afraid there are far too many schmuck people that absolutely love and adore her here in CA. *gets queezy feeling* So we're stuck with her, unfortunately.

"ZOMG! She's such a humble and real american with her medium sized home! She wants to have a barbecue with us! ZOMG! She really likes us and cares!"

--What the media didn't tell you is that home is in San Francisco...not a cheap area, even for CA. Probably is inviting more 'celebrity' status folks over there than little people on top. :barf:

Yes, replacing one group of absolutely corrupt people with another group of equally corrupt people in yet another election where we give them lots of money and beg them to do things for us when they don't even care about our welfare makes a lot of sense.

Lookit, I hear ya. However, people have been trying for years now to get another party up in there besides the broken and dysfunctional 2 party system. It's still a work in progress until enough people begin to give a %$^@. Only then in the face of undeniable dissatisfaction with it, will we see if the elected officials truly are doing as 'the people' wish or if it is tyranny. Methinks there are too many smart people with the 2 party system "herding the cattle" for that to happen anytime soon.

Tommycat
08-14-2009, 09:49 PM
Documented proof?

You also understand that prenatal care begins before the pregnancy? If someone has a condition and it is left untreated until they know they are pregnant to qualify for insurance of last resort, then the fetus early development could be subject to that condition.

Documented proof for speculation? Or do I really need to tell you it's speculation on my part. When talking about events in the future, it's awful difficult to get documented proof. I base it on the current mentality of a majority of people in the US. We as a country are different than other countries out there. In general we have a more independant mindset. Even with healthcare available people still don't go to the doctor. Look how hard it is to get someone WITH INSURANCE to go visit their doctor when they are experiencing signs of a stroke. Every day people with life threatening illnesses go without treatment even though they have insurance.

Edited to add:
Keep in mind that when talking about infant mortality, we also have to look at other factors such as drug use, alcohol abuse, smoking, and a host of things that just come down to a bad mother having a child. Drug use is especially important as the US leads in cocain experimentetion(http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/06/stoned_nation_international_st.php).

Then we have African Americans which have an infant mortality rate of 14.1 per 1000(wow... same as DC... not a correlation, just coincidence).

Det. Bart Lasiter
08-14-2009, 10:34 PM
Well, we've got a Democratic president, so now all we need is a Republican-controlled congress and we'll end up with a budget surplus like we had in the '90s.

So, here's hoping that the Democrat-controlled congress falls flat on its face and gets voted out in 2010. :D

Yes, replacing one group of absolutely corrupt people with another group of equally corrupt people in yet another election where we give them lots of money and beg them to do things for us when they don't even care about our welfare makes a lot of sense.

yes let me rephrase that with some help from my friends digital underground

Mnm0FILNb5M

mimartin
08-14-2009, 11:01 PM
Documented proof for speculation?

Guess work, got it.

The U.S. ranks 40th in annual alcohol consumption per person according to the World Health Organization.
1. Luxembourg
2. Ireland
3. Hungary
4. Moldova
5. Czech Republic
8. Germany
10. Britain
11. Denmark
12. Spain
17. France
36. Australia
40. United States
46. Italy
51. Japan
89. Mexico


Under smoking Prevalence (using adult males), the U.S. ranks 115
35. Cuba
37. Japan
38. Greece
44. Lithuania
55. Hungary
71. Germany
78. Netherlands
83. Austria
90. Israel
91. Italy
92. Czech Republic
93. Denmark
95. Belgium
99. Morocco
101. Ireland
104. Norway
108. Switzerland
111. Finland
112. Iceland
115. United States
118. New Zealand

As to cocaine use, you are correct the U.S. ranks number #1 with 2.8% Annual prevalence. However…

2. Spain 2.7
4. England 2.4
5. Canada 2.3





Remote Medical Care (http://www.ramusa.org/index.html) is a nonprofit health care provider started to bring modern medical care to third world countries. Now 65% of their services are provided to Americans. Glad to see them doing this, but sad to see there is so much need in America with our current system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYoB-bVYrPQ


The brutal truth about American's healthcare (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-brutal-truth-about-americarsquos-healthcare-1772580.html)
At least the English can get a good laugh at the yanks misfortune and stupidity.

Tommycat
08-15-2009, 01:36 AM
Your numbers seem a bit off. The data I have seen shows the US as having 16.2% Cocain use 73.6% Tobacco use, and 91.6 Alchohol. I'm just pointing out that seeing as how we are the highest harmful substance users there could be an alternate explanation for the Infant mortality rate.

To be able to claim it's lack of healthcare we really have to see a breakdown of CAUSE OF DEATH for the infants. And judging by the leading cause being Birth Defects, it COULD be true. It could also be lack of training on how to deal with certain defects. Again, pointing to the 14.1 rate of DC with it's Healthy Family program leads me to believe its the latter.

True_Avery
08-15-2009, 02:41 AM
I'm left wondering exactly what certain people expect when they repeatedly, in public and in private "mock patriots" and express a desire to see their own country fail. :¬:

At a loss, here. :giveup:
I do not see many people express "desire to see their own country fail". I see people who hate the president, politicians, media, political parties, agendas, extremists, cowards, and so on but I've seen very few who simply want the country to go up in flames and go down catastrophically.

Mocking patriots is one thing. Mocking "patriots" is another, as I do not consider someone who waves a flag and says the pledge to be a patriot. I consider them to be a nationalist, and the extremists to be dangerous nationalists.

On that note, you'll have to define to me what a "patriot" is to you. Personally, someone who openly calls themselves a "patriot" is not a "patriot" to me. To me, it is a title that is earned and given; not taken. And even then I don't think it gives them the right to proclaim themselves better citizens than everyone else. Humility is a key part of what makes a "patriot" to me, or in general makes me respect them enough to put them on a higher tier. And even then I wouldn't ever call them a patriot or consider them one, since I'd rather see them as a better person than a better citizen.

Q
08-15-2009, 02:51 AM
Well, you should have gone to the trouble of stating such conveniently semantic distinctions a month ago, then.

Darth Avlectus
08-15-2009, 03:08 AM
^^^Seconded

True_Avery
08-15-2009, 03:47 AM
Well, you should have gone to the trouble of stating such conveniently semantic distinctions a month ago, then.
You were left wondering, so I responded in turn. I asked for your definition of a patriot for compare and contrast after explaining my own, and you turn around and insult me yet again.

So, I'll try again:
----------------------

I do not often see people expressing a desire for the country to fail, but rather jabs at various parts of the country that, in their opinion, they dislike. Seeing as you've expressed interest in seeing the government side of the system gone, I can only guess that you do not like that part of the country. People like and hate different parts, and express those beliefs as people do.

Freedom, being a key part of this country's idea of how democracy should run, seems to entail every person with his or her beliefs as long as they are within the bounds of the law when acted upon (while that seems to disregard the definition of freedom... I digress).

But, when someone calls themselves a patriot and someone else unamerican for expressing an opinion or belief I can only point out the hypocrisy in the situation. As a patriot, by some definitions, is some who upholds the foundations of the country it seems odd that the idea of freedom, a key part of the country, would be pushed aside to say something like "you are unamerican" or "get out of my country" for expressing a belief and using their freedom.

It implies their opinion is less, and it is so far below them that the person does not have a place in the country. It implies that people outside of the country are somehow less than those within, which is to some degree racism, or rather prejudice... or simply nationalism. By proclaiming yourself a patriot, or someone else a patriot, it would seem to imply that not only are they a better American in some way, but that their actions and possibly beliefs reflect upon that of the foundations of the country.

But, again, using the words "patriot", "unamerican", and so on would seem to imply that not all men are created equal, not everyone deserves the freedoms in the country due to their own opinions, and so on. The use, and hell even the existence of the words seems to play contradictory to the message.

Not only that, but like "liberal", "conservative", "left", "right", "commie", and so on it can be used as a label, and seems to exist primarily as a label. But, in order for one to be a patriot there must be those who are unamerican for the title to mean anything, which brings me back to prejudice.

As someone with friends from and in many different countries, lines to speak to them through, and lines to interact with places outside the country... I find the words to be tasteless and, to some degree, dangerous.

I will call someone a better person than me, and someone a lesser person than me. I'm only human. But I'll call them a person and not an American because that somehow implies that "American" is something that everyone should strive for. And this goes with any country that proclaims patriotism/nationalism.

As far as seeing the country fail, I prefer to put my vote down and watching the events unfold. I'm one vote within 300 million people, and the country determines the direction of the country. If that direct is into a hole of failure, then let it be so. Perhaps we'll climb out of it and grow stronger from the experience. Or perhaps we'll wither away and grow into something else. It is the nature of things, as no country can simply be #1 forever.

Does that mean I want to be at the helm and drive it into the dirt? No, that would be stupid. I'm skeptical, but I'm not suicidal. And even with the comments and mockings of the country, it is far more feasible that they, like you, do not like an aspect of the country and rail on it instead of being determined to take the entire thing down. The entirety of the country is doing that well enough ourselves.

Who is and who isn't a patriot, an american, a liberal, a republican, and so on are just scare tactics and labels used to distinguish people from one another to make them easier to hate. I'm guilty of it, and so is everyone else. Its just how the human mind seems to organize things. But by giving into such concepts so completely, we only split the country into pieces and, in the end, are just hurting ourselves.

---------------------------

I apologized for my actions, and have been taking a break. I responded to your comment in a fashion I thought was acceptable, and asked for your opinion for conversation. You decided to open a wound, insult my opinion, and disregard my question which can really only be seen as a flamebait.

I'll ask again for your conversation, but please respect my opinion and respond in kind.

Q
08-15-2009, 05:40 AM
I would love to, if I didn't think that I would merely be enabling yet another repetition of what is obviously nothing more than a classic abuse cycle.

mimartin
08-15-2009, 05:45 AM
Your numbers seem a bit off. No, I'm not off.

2.8% of the population has used cocaine within per year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalence_of_cocaine_use)


Alcohol just rank by consumption per person per person.

Smoking was ranked by prevalence to smoke. Like I said, the study only used adult males.

I listed this all where I showed the ranking.

You said users, so I will say that your numbers are off. If you want to change your answer to 73.6% of Americans have tried tobacco, then the number may be somewhat rational. However, if 73.6% of Americans were tobacco user do you really believe smoking bans would be happening? For the record, I sell life and health insurance. We don’t just take the insured’s word for Tobacco use. We test them to know if they will be surcharged or not.

Same goes for Alcohol, there is no way 91.6% of Americans are regular Alcohol users.



To be able to claim it's lack of healthcare we really have to see a breakdown of CAUSE OF DEATH for the infants.
If you would read what I wrote: Infant Mortality Rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country. It says that on the very CIA website I linked. Never wrote that it was caused by lack of health care.