Obama!!!

Tools    





there's a frog in my snake oil
7th, you seem to become the cheerleader of hate when you enter this thread. Why is that? Did Obama sell you magic pumpkin seeds that didn't work or something? Why are you so certain that none of his beanstalks are growing?*

(* felt like a change from the sporting metaphor )
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



I do not think it is hate at all, I just wonder where all the supporters went to. Not just online here. Seriously though, does it come as a suprise that I am not too enthusiastic about plans I disagree with?
I am just trying to stir the pot and get some fight out of the libs, they aren't taking my bait for the most part though, guess I will have to make fun of Bams Allstar pitch before that happens.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by 7thson
Seriously though, does it come as a suprise that I am not too enthusiastic about plans I disagree with?
Course not, it's just that phrases like 'and this team has just started their epic failness' seem as premature in their predictive certainty as the pre-election utopia-beliefs. That is all



I know I will recieve alot of heat for my personal opinion on the whole healthcare issue, but I may as well state it.

I think the whole "government run" vs. "corporate" healthcare debate is an argument of symantics. You hear that if the government runs healthcare that you will have to wait for approval before having procedures, and be told what physician you can see. This already happens now, and on the flip side you hear that everyone will have "free" healthcare, when really you have to get taxed.

Really, in my eyes goverment and corporations are indivisible, long before any bailouts or any of the current policies. Can anyone deny the fact that corporations hold alot of sway in legislation, at least more so than joe six-pack.

Also, both entities have similar directives; corporations are designed to pull money from consumers and the less they give them in return the more revenue is aquired, and government pulls money from taxpayers and again the less they give back in return goes in their pockets.

I think of it as two giants, and the only real choice you have is which do you wish to be crushed by.
__________________


...uh the post is up there...



I am having a nervous breakdance
I presume that Yoda isn't primarily directing his posts towards me, a "non American", so I haven't paid this thread that much attention (even though I'm constantly reading it and equally constantly dropping my jaw every time while doing so). I have replied to it in the past though, at least I think I did. But just in case....

From my point of view I think he's great. I think the world in an instant became a little bit more civilized when he entered the White House. From a global view I think he's done pretty much the right things all the way. I just smile every time I realize that Bush and Cheney aren't calling the shots no longer.

When it comes down to the U.S. economy, I don't know. But reading the posts here you make it sound like USA is in much worse shape than the rest of the world and that you blame one guy for not having fixed it yet. You got, what, 50 states? Are you telling me that US is more centralized than countries that aren't federations? It's like blaming Barroso for not fixing the Latvian economy, or the German, or the Polish.

Reading all the moaning and bitching in this thread over the fact that he bowed to the Saudi king or whatever, or hasn't attacked North Korea because of two spies (or not) or hasn't turned around the greatest recession in decades makes me wonder: were we, the anti Bush crowd, really this childish when Cheney, I mean Bush, ran things?
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



From my point of view I think he's great. I think the world in an instant became a little bit more civilized when he entered the White House. From a global view I think he's done pretty much the right things all the way. I just smile every time I realize that Bush and Cheney aren't calling the shots no longer.
And yet nobody seems to care that several aspects of his foreign policy have been, so far, surprisingly similar by most accounts. I'm fairly amazed at how much value is being placed on mere tone. Bush was thought to smirk, and Obama to smile; they seem more like an excuse to comment on each person's perceived personality than anything else. And somehow we're supposed to believe these projections are serious ways of judging policy?

Oh, sure, I wouldn't dispute that tone and approach plays an important role in diplomacy, but this seems to be the only thing Obama's defenders have been able to latch onto, and as a result many seem to wildly inflate its importance, particularly given that it's oh-so-conveniently unquantifiable.

Policy is still paramount. The fact that Obama's defenders are continually citing things other than policy in his defense is, to my, very telling, and hints that the entire thing is based in emotion far more than many would care to admit.

When it comes down to the U.S. economy, I don't know. But reading the posts here you make it sound like USA is in much worse shape than the rest of the world and that you blame one guy for not having fixed it yet. You got, what, 50 states? Are you telling me that US is more centralized than countries that aren't federations? It's like blaming Barroso for not fixing the Latvian economy, or the German, or the Polish.
That's the entire point: Obama's enacting all-encompassing federal policies that apply to all states. Montana can't decide not to opt-in to his proposed healthcare mandates. Pennsylvania can't decide not to abolish the secret ballot for union votes. And no state can decide not to feel the effects of massive debt and government bailouts, either. Yes, the U.S. is becoming more centralized. That's one of the things people are getting so upset about.

And I don't blame him for "not fixing" it. I blame him for making it worse, and for enacting policies that are demonstrably and obviously a direct contradiction to some of his stated goals. I blame him for either misunderstanding or willfully ignoring simple economic truths in favor of flimsy populist slogans.

Reading all the moaning and bitching in this thread over the fact that he bowed to the Saudi king or whatever, or hasn't attacked North Korea because of two spies (or not) or hasn't turned around the greatest recession in decades makes me wonder: were we, the anti Bush crowd, really this childish when Cheney, I mean Bush, ran things?
Sometimes, sure. You were here: I'm sure you saw even people you agreed with flip out from time to time. It probably seems less pronounced because you, well, kinda agreed with a lot of it.

Regarding the rest: an awful lot has been posted in the thread, and most of it has been informed, straightforward, explained disagreement. Most of the complaints have not been about bowing or handshakes (and calling such things "childish" is a fairly insulting exaggeration, in my opinion), but about policy. The other stuff is par for the course; not terribly important, but every President has to endure it, it seems. It's not a good reason to dismiss the more serious concerns that have been expressed just as often.



I know I will recieve alot of heat for my personal opinion on the whole healthcare issue, but I may as well state it.

I think the whole "government run" vs. "corporate" healthcare debate is an argument of symantics. You hear that if the government runs healthcare that you will have to wait for approval before having procedures, and be told what physician you can see. This already happens now, and on the flip side you hear that everyone will have "free" healthcare, when really you have to get taxed.

Really, in my eyes goverment and corporations are indivisible, long before any bailouts or any of the current policies. Can anyone deny the fact that corporations hold alot of sway in legislation, at least more so than joe six-pack.
More than Joe Six-Pack, but not as much as the Government. That's the biggest difference: healthcare corporations still have to answer to customers day-in and day-out, and are still subject to the law. In fact, the healthcare industry is easily one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. Imagine corporate healthcare combined with the ability to make the laws that regulate itself, and you'll have an image of nationalized healthcare. That alone makes the two wildly different.

Politicians, of course, have to answer to voters, but not as often or continuously as businesses. And history shows us that even social programs with massive holes and budget problems are well-nigh impossible to get rid of. Entitlement programs just don't go away. Healthcare and Social Security entitlement programs are single-handedly crippling our budget, and yet we can't seem to pass even common-sense reforms, like raising the retirement age. They are entrenched in a way that even the largest corporations could not hope to rival.

Even if the two were akin, that wouldn't leave much reason to raise taxes to switch then, would it? But that's what's being proposed right now.



More than Joe Six-Pack, but not as much as the Government. That's the biggest difference: healthcare corporations still have to answer to customers day-in and day-out, and are still subject to the law. In fact, the healthcare industry is easily one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country. Imagine corporate healthcare combined with the ability to make the laws that regulate itself, and you'll have an image of nationalized healthcare. That alone makes the two wildly different.

Politicians, of course, have to answer to voters, but not as often or continuously as businesses. And history shows us that even social programs with massive holes and budget problems are well-nigh impossible to get rid of. Entitlement programs just don't go away. Healthcare and Social Security entitlement programs are single-handedly crippling our budget, and yet we can't seem to pass even common-sense reforms, like raising the retirement age. They are entrenched in a way that even the largest corporations could not hope to rival.

Even if the two were akin, that wouldn't leave much reason to raise taxes to switch then, would it? But that's what's being proposed right now.
I see them both as faceless entities that essentially see individuals as numerations on a computer screen. Either side claiming that one is more compassionate than the other is down-right laughable. Typically both business and government work in concert for a common goal, power. I see it as a symbiotic relationship, the government seeks contracts, politicians seek funding, and corporations seek legislative support.

I just can't seem to buy into any of the idealism.



Borat&BrunoFan's Avatar
Registered User
Yawn Obama's goal is to raise taxes, make health-care coverage more complicated, and to be the first Black-Prez. Check, Check, and...Check.
__________________
I can beat The Unforgivin on expert on Guitar Hero: Metallica. CAN U??? NO! CAUSE I PWN! BUA HA!



Now, like I said I don't really have a side on the healthcare issue, but I have noticed a bit of a double-standard on the part of some conservatives. I constantly hear this "small government" talk, but they want to expand the military and corporate incentives. It seems to me they expand the parts of the government they approve of. Believe it or not the military also takes a chunk out of the national debt. I didn't hear anyone complain that Bush was giving money away to financial institutions, which he basically did with the incentives. The more money they recieved in-turn they used to spread their influence in legislation and the cycle continues.



king_of_movies_316's Avatar
The King of Movies
I just watched the news and from what i saw people seem to be un-happy with Barack. His levels have dropped alot from what i have heard. The reason because of this is very simple and happens in literaly all presidental reigins:

In the campain to be president, the future president promises the American people that their lives will change and that all they need is hope and crap like that.

Once the indivdual is voted in, he makes a few speeches saying stuff like how "this is the time for change" and how all americans will have improved lives now that this guy is president.

6 months later, the average American realises that his/her life has not changed one bit since the new president came into office. They still have to go to work, pay their morgage, get up at 6am, pay their debt and so on, even after the president promised that things will change.

This has happend for decades. Obama is just another example (in his case he realy pushed the whole "change" thing to the max). Voters generaly beleve that once the person they vote for becomes president that their lives will dramiticly change and will be living in paradise. This will never happen, period.

That South Park episode with Obama in it explaines my point pefectly.
__________________
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=17475 - My movie reviews



Simply put, now that he's in office he's "the man." Similar to the problem the Republicans had while having an overwhelming majority, you are then the status quo.



A system of cells interlinked
Obama should have stayed right out of the situation up here in Cambridge. Becoming involved in a local law enforcement issue in Massachusetts, simply because there is a racial aspect involved, is a mistake.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



were we, the anti Bush crowd, really this childish when Cheney, I mean Bush, ran things?
Yep. Identifying with any one political party seems to suck the brains and manners out of people.

Like I've always said, once elected to office, a politician is never as good as his supporters had hope or as bad as his opponents had feared. But Obama is coming pretty close.

Wonder what he'll be like when he loses his comfortable Congressional majority in the next election and has to start working with both sides to get legislation through? The real test of a president is his ability to persuade and compromise.



Am I the only one hearig the sound of duelling banjos reading some posts in this thread?
And from what fine nation are you making all these judgments about US citizens and politics? Give us a shining example of your smarter and better governed land.



I see them both as faceless entities that essentially see individuals as numerations on a computer screen. Either side claiming that one is more compassionate than the other is down-right laughable. Typically both business and government work in concert for a common goal, power. I see it as a symbiotic relationship, the government seeks contracts, politicians seek funding, and corporations seek legislative support.

I just can't seem to buy into any of the idealism.
I don't think it's an issue of idealism, because I'm not claiming that health insurance companies are compassionate or see people are individual humans. I'm sure some people in such companies do, and some don't. I'm just making a claim about money and efficiency, and why goverment-run (or government-constructed) healthcare will always be less efficient than private healthcare.

Now, like I said I don't really have a side on the healthcare issue, but I have noticed a bit of a double-standard on the part of some conservatives. I constantly hear this "small government" talk, but they want to expand the military and corporate incentives. It seems to me they expand the parts of the government they approve of. Believe it or not the military also takes a chunk out of the national debt. I didn't hear anyone complain that Bush was giving money away to financial institutions, which he basically did with the incentives. The more money they recieved in-turn they used to spread their influence in legislation and the cycle continues.
Well, a lot of conservatives I know are extremely disappointed in Bush starting the bailout train. We're even more disappointed in Obama for basically tripling it, but you'll get no argument from me about some of Bush's actions in his last year in office. I think he capitulated on a number of his free market principles (he's actually said so since leaving office), and it's a shame.

But sure, even people in favor of small government want some things well-funded. I don't think that's hypocritical. Besides, it's usually smaller government that's used to describe the desire. A small-government conservative believes that the government should do a few things, and do them very well, and shouldn't try to be everything to everyone. I don't think there's any tension between this ideal, and recognizing that a handful of public services are especially important. Technically speaking almost everyone in the mainstream thinks government should be as small as possible; they just have different ideas about which programs are necessary, and which aren't.



9/11 and Iraq = Why we are here now? Those "guys" sure have our number and we should be ashamed.

. . . Okay, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.



And it keeps on coming: five days ago, the White House significantly 'relaxed' its lobbyist restrictions for stimulus money.

Let's recap a few things about Obama and lobbyists...

He won't be beholden to lobbyists and won't let any lobbyists work in areas in which they'd done private business for at least two years...except it ends up being one year and Obama signs an Executive Order to allow for exceptions, the frequency and methodology of which he won't disclose.

He promises greater transparency from government...but in addition to the above, the White House won't disclose who has recused themselves from which meetings, and why.

He rails against lobbyists constantly during the campaign...but allows them in for the biggest flippin' gravy train Washington has seen in decades.

So, are any of the Obama supporters upset yet, or does it not matter what he says or does, just so long as he won?