Obama: The New George Bush

[lord_casek]

On an slightly related note;

 

Cross fire really sucks these days! I rarely feel like posting these days because anything my posts will be quickly drowned out by uninformed nuts and zietgiest cornballs.

An easy first step to recovering this sub-forum would be bans for people who grossly miss-use punctuation.

 

For a while there was some great dialogue in here.

Mods, step it up!

 

 

I feel the same way. There was some really intellectual stuff I could kick back and read for

several pages. Now it's all fucked and whack.

 

As Shai said, ignore list can be your best friend.

 

 

 

Can someone explain why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? He was nominated in Nov., not even president. WTF>?

[angelofdeath]

he won the prize because he is engaged in a unnecessary war. just like wilson and teddy roosevelt

 

what makes me sick is people like michael moore bowing down to obama, yet he condemned bush. his F/911 movie shows where the village is peaceful then is blown up... obama is commander in chief of an army doing the exact same thing.

 

all the lefites condemning the sunshine patriot (people who support bush socialism but despise obama socialism)section of the tea party movement, better open their eyes to this

[lord_casek]

he won the prize because he is engaged in a unnecessary war. just like wilson and teddy roosevelt

 

what makes me sick is people like michael moore bowing down to obama, yet he condemned bush. his F/911 movie shows where the village is peaceful then is blown up... obama is commander in chief of an army doing the exact same thing.

 

all the lefites condemning the sunshine patriot (people who support bush socialism but despise obama socialism)section of the tea party movement, better open their eyes to this

 

Many were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in a presidency that began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline for the prize and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/nobel.peace.prize/index.html

 

 

So, not even President for a couple of weeks and dude is nominated and wins?

 

Yeah, he's really making renewing peaceful relationships....with the Afghani's, especially

[angelofdeath]

^^^

yeah

i read that they considered him on 'campaign rhetoric' only

[x5v1s]

im not a zietgiest wacko im a strict constitutional conservative .. smaller government .personal responsiblities. state rights type of guy ..

[Decyferon]

ok ..on to health care ..it is not a right for the citizens of our country have health care ..you do not deserve it period . its gonna drain us down economically even further ..even worse health care is gonna have so much more red tape than it does now being that it will be a government run business .bureaucrats running this system being over paid and under performing just like the education system ,they just throw more money at a problem & maybe the problem will just go away .... .then there is the end of life discussion ...when a doctor is gonna tell that you cost to much to keep alive or are too old and there just gonna let you die ... no thanks thats not the world i wanna live in ...

 

yea and at the moment your insurance company will determine when it is no longer viable for you to have treatment

 

Healthcare is something everyone desrves, I don't agree with Americans having to buy insurance for health that is bullshit, there are enough tax payers in the US to be able to support a fully funded healthcare system that covers all, just like in the UK. Why should healthcare not be a right?? seems a hell of a lot more sensible than the right to have a gun. Why should only Rich people be entitled to healthcare because they can afford it and poor people get to die with no healthcare, seems like a terrible, inhumane system to me.

 

In the UK your more likely to be kept alive in a NHS hospital than you are in provate healthcare

[Decyferon]

I feel the same way. There was some really intellectual stuff I could kick back and read for

several pages. Now it's all fucked and whack.

 

As Shai said, ignore list can be your best friend.

 

 

 

Can someone explain why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize? He was nominated in Nov., not even president. WTF>?

 

Yea crossfire does seem to have gotten a lot harder to deal with, what with all these nut jobs that have come into it, makes it a lot less fun to read through discussions when you have people coming back at you like this was channel zero or something.

 

I was shocked Obama won the Nobel prize, only thing I could think was because he was the first black president (which shouldn't mean he would be given a prize, he just got the job).

 

He doesn't deserve it, not until he has at least come through on some promises and has delivered some results, but to be honest the Nobel prize isn't what it used to be nowadays it is all lobbyists and media coverage - complete waste of time and as a prize doesn't count for shit nowadays.

[shai]

I said something recently along the lines of "It seems that you don't have to do much to win a Nobel Peace Prize these days...well, I'm good at doing nothing and I'm peaceful, so where do I sign up?"

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

The one thing I DO like Obama is that he's at least willing to talk about new ideas and try to get some clue on where people stand. He might not jump when people say frog but I believe he's listening.

 

On the other hand, Bush would have been ecstatic if he could have had some kind of weird Born Again Christian police state with a press completely run by Rupert Murdoch...come to think of it, how do we know he wasn't just player hating on the Taliban for beating him to the punch?

 

Oh yeah, did anyone hear the one about Gore getting a $529 million loan from the US government to develop luxury electric cars...in Finland? And that's on top of the $465 million US loan to Tesla, who- in a twist of irony- builds their $109,000 electric cars....in the UK.

 

So....one billion dollars going overseas when our auto industry is in the shitter. What could that money do elsewhere? I don't know...nearly balance the state budget in Alabama or Colorado or South Carolina or Washington. Or completely wipe it out in Hawaii, or Idaho, or Iowa, or Kansas, or Kentucky, or Louisiana, or Maine, or Mississippi, or Missouri, or New Hampshire, or New Mexico, or Oklahoma, or Oregon, or Rhode Island, or South Dakota, or Utah, or Vermont, or Wyoming...

 

You just provided great examples of why I don't support a government run health care system. I do not trust the government to be responsible enough to look out for me and my family when it comes to health care decisions.

 

I already hate the FDA and everything they do. I know several people personally who could not seek out treatment they wanted to here because the FDA has ridiculous bans on experimental medicine, and what do you think a nationalized health care system would do? Guess what happened to all of them. They died.

 

They would rather bail out wall street than help out home owners. All of these huge government or non government institutions that are still affiliated with our administration always drop the ball. I mean do you actually want me to create a list?

 

Are you seriously telling me you trust that things will get better after the change to Obamacare?

 

What about staff issues and proper training? I don't even want to go over how my grandmother has been treated by dozens of people who seriously have no fucking clue as to what they are doing. Or my last few trips to the ER which thankfully have not been anything too serious. Few stitches, high fever. Routine stuff. Complete circle jerk.

 

I work in a Hospital. I see the death, I see the pain.

 

AOD has explained over and over again in this thread how the cost of medical treatment could and should be lowered if our government truly cared about our well being and benefit.

 

Should I bring up how much money was actually spent on the investigation into 9/11?

 

Should I bring up how fast FEMA showed up to NO to help the thousands of people who needed basic necessities to survive?

 

This is just a pitch to get more control of an industry that they could only manipulate from a distance. Watch who's pockets get lined after this happens. It would only further prove my point.

 

If you would like me to post articles that support my opinion than I will. You probably won't read them anyway.

 

I could only see the irony of people lying on their deathbeds after supporting such a change, being denied the treatment they needed because that perticular drug or that perticular procedure just doesn't fit to well into the governments cost cutting agenda. That is if you are among the millions of people that won't be able to afford private insurance.

 

I'm not saying this system doesn't need reform, because it most certainly does, it is just being reformed into a much worse system.

 

Bring the troops home. Stop this run away spending on our defense. Scale back on the global empire. Billions of dollars are suddenly free to move around anywhere it is needed.

 

Including Health Care.

 

Perhaps this post was in the wrong thread.

 

Ah well.

[Cymatics]

I just wanted to show that this isn't entirely about Obama, not by a long shot. Corruption runs pretty deep in the US government, so being the president is basically being the head shit eater/face man. It's really a ceremonial job at best.

 

Bush didn't understand that, nor did he seem to understand that what his team was doing was highly unethical and immoral, and at times illegal....but somehow he managed to get off scot free. Nixon understood it and played the game damn well for a while, but then he made a few blunders that put him in the hot seat.

 

this. this right here. i sometimes wonder if the majority of people will ever grasp this concept. presidents don't have any true power what so ever, not even congress or the senate. Banks and corporations run shit, its just the way it is. in retrospect, this whole obama's fault/bush's fault right/left wing liberal conservative argument is something i dont understand because i cant help but feel that it is irrelevant to me . i see it as theater at best and its great for distracting . in retrospect, you got to ask yourself..who owns fox? who owns viacom? who owns the reserve? who owns the central bank of london? it sure is hell not the president.

 

even in ancient times, the king answered to a higher authority.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephor

[Decyferon]

I agree I always say it when the power shifts from tory to labour over here, it doesn't matter what they promise during elections because when they get into power they can't do a thing because big businesses that help fund the parties etc don't want certain policies, also it takes so long for these changes to go through that if they aren't done by the end of their term it will just get scrapped by the next election winner - it's a farce

[shai]

Are you seriously telling me you trust that things will get better after the change to Obamacare?

 

No, but I would be able to go get a checkup and get some answers about a couple of health issues I have that are troubling me.

 

AOD has explained over and over again in this thread how the cost of medical treatment could and should be lowered if our government truly cared about our well being and benefit.

 

And I like what he says but the problem is that the free market seldom brings out the best in people. If there were no checks and balances on the health care industry, what do you think would happen? Really think about this for a minute. Do you think all of these claims adjusters and executives at the HMOs are going to suddenly have moments of clarity and realize "Wow, we've really been screwing poor people, we should take care of everyone regardless of income." Not likely.

 

If you would like me to post articles that support my opinion than I will. You probably won't read them anyway.

 

Actually, I do read articles and links people use to back up their case. I don't have much else to do these days.

 

I could only see the irony of people lying on their deathbeds after supporting such a change, being denied the treatment they needed because that perticular drug or that perticular procedure just doesn't fit to well into the governments cost cutting agenda. That is if you are among the millions of people that won't be able to afford private insurance.

 

This happens in the private sector already. It appears that what you're doing is projecting this onto the government. Maybe it's just a symptom of large scale managed health care?

 

In fact, I've experienced it personally. I have a few preexisting conditions (cervical stenosis, hypertension, depression, arthritis, asthma, chronic bronchitis) that some, if not most, insurance companies would want nothing to do with. The only way I can get insurance is to sneak in under group coverage through a job and pray that I don't have to have a check up to qualify, and even then the HMO will probably opt out or stall on anything I needed unless it was a matter of life or death....and even then they might hedge.

 

I'm not saying this system doesn't need reform, because it most certainly does, it is just being reformed into a much worse system.

 

More projection. To me it sounds like "Nothing is better than something that benefits people who are poor if it's screwed up by design...and especially if I have to pay for it."

 

Bring the troops home. Stop this run away spending on our defense. Scale back on the global empire. Billions of dollars are suddenly free to move around anywhere it is needed.

 

I agree with all of this, but it's not gonna happen any time soon. And when it does happen and the money is free, what guarantee is there that it will be spent wisely?

[Decyferon]

agree with you on every point there Shai, I don't see how people think that having their health managed by an insurance company is in anyway beneficial to anyone other than the shareholders of the insurance company.

 

Look into the NHS in the UK, while it may not be perfect at least I can go to the Doctor whenever I please and be looked after, I can go to hospital and get fixed up and not get billed for it. Just because when I was younger and crashed a bike and fucked up a vertebrae in my back does not mean that if I pull my back tomorrow I won't get treatment for some pre-existing condition.

[angelofdeath]

omg we cant let people make their own decisions and contracts!... we need big bro to help! he always does what is egalitarian, humanitarian and RIGHT!

i dont see how people want the same people who run the MVA and the post office, who spend 300$ for a $20 hammer in the army and who sent troops to a country that did not attack us, did not have wmd's and did not want war with us... you want these people to run your healthcare.

 

i guess im just cut from a different mold.

 

again, i'll say it. easiest way to solve the problem....

let the people who want government healthcare HAVE IT. and let those who dont, suffer under the tyrannical oppression of the insurance companies and doctors. just leave each other alone.

but the meddlers would never have this. there is no way any government extremist would allow citizens to decide certain decisions on their own merit and let them keep their own money. this is absolutely out of the question.

the issue really isnt healthcare.

its force. forcing people to do something they may or may not want to do.

in slavery the issue wasnt the work, it was the force. the whip. the fact they couldnt leave. that they were forced to be a part of the slave system.

and so it is with government/'citizen' relationships.

[shai]

again, i'll say it. easiest way to solve the problem....

let the people who want government healthcare HAVE IT. and let those who dont, suffer under the tyrannical oppression of the insurance companies and doctors. just leave each other alone.

 

I never advocated anything besides this, seeing as there's no reason why public and private health care can't coexist.

 

but the meddlers would never have this.

 

Why?

[angelofdeath]

are any govt programs 'voluntary?'

absolutely not.

if we dont use schools do we have a choice to fund them? if we dont want social security, why do we have to fund it? as it is with obamacare... if you dont want obama care, why cant i just simply NOT FUND IT?

 

if you dont want to partake in a government program funded through taxation, such as social security, medicare, obama care, schools, etc you will be jailed or if you resist forcibly enough, the government will shoot you.

[Decyferon]

But don't you think that it is good to have a society that is built in a way that everyone has a chance? Just because you don't maybe have kids doesn't mean that your taxes shouldn't go to education? I think if you choose where your tax money goes then your society will be screwed no one would fund the simple things like lighting or roads things like that. While you may be intelligent AOD there are huge numbers of people that can't grasp these things and society would be worse off with a bunch of rednecks putting all their taxes into defense and letting everything else go to he'll

 

In the uk we have private and nhs healthcare and it works fine

[shai]

are any govt programs 'voluntary?'

absolutely not.

if we dont use schools do we have a choice to fund them? if we dont want social security, why do we have to fund it? as it is with obamacare... if you dont want obama care, why cant i just simply NOT FUND IT?

 

if you dont want to partake in a government program funded through taxation, such as social security, medicare, obama care, schools, etc you will be jailed or if you resist forcibly enough, the government will shoot you.

 

Well, that's an issue with the tax code.

 

I actually agree with you here, to a point. If people send their kids to parochial school and have full medical coverage, they SHOULD be able to opt out of paying into a large portion of the taxes since they aren't directly benefiting from it.

 

But...what happens if they lose their jobs and have to send their kids to public school and take advantage of state health care? Most Americans would hop right on the gravy train without a second thought, because they like having it both ways.

 

I feel like the model you propose would only work if everyone had a conscience and unfailingly did the right thing, didn't try to cheat or game the system, etc. But if it's wide open- no regulation, no checks and balances, no nothing- then it sounds like it has all the makings for a Dickens novel. The imbalance of wealth would be even more obscene than it is now and there would be nothing in the way of people creating monopolies.

 

I'm not advocating egalitarianism, but deregulation and lack of oversight is a big part of the reason Wall Street got over on America.

[Mainframe]

i guess im just cut from a different mold.

 

:rolleyes:

[angelofdeath]

Well, that's an issue with the tax code.

 

I actually agree with you here, to a point. If people send their kids to parochial school and have full medical coverage, they SHOULD be able to opt out of paying into a large portion of the taxes since they aren't directly benefiting from it.

 

But...what happens if they lose their jobs and have to send their kids to public school and take advantage of state health care? Most Americans would hop right on the gravy train without a second thought, because they like having it both ways.

 

I feel like the model you propose would only work if everyone had a conscience and unfailingly did the right thing, didn't try to cheat or game the system, etc. But if it's wide open- no regulation, no checks and balances, no nothing- then it sounds like it has all the makings for a Dickens novel. The imbalance of wealth would be even more obscene than it is now and there would be nothing in the way of people creating monopolies.

 

I'm not advocating egalitarianism, but deregulation and lack of oversight is a big part of the reason Wall Street got over on America.

 

cool.

the main thing is the unvoluntary nature of the programs, not really the programs.

if they were voluntary all people could really say is...'well, thats pretty stupid...' (or inefficient, etc etc)

but because all of these are not voluntary, that is why we have all the fuss. this is 'democracy' where a portion of the population tell the other portion what to do.

 

the tax system creates resentment.

its a dangerous cycle. for instance. if you are against social security, but are forced to pay into it, then you damn well want to 'reclaim' your money out of it when it comes time to retire. so you have some level of hypocrisy, but its not technically hypocrisy on the part of some, its reclaiming their property.

 

its 100% false to say wall street wasnt regulated 'enough.' it was government policy along with the FED that created the collapse. it wasnt unregulated capitalism because we didnt have unregulated capitalism, we had corporatism/fascism with a good dose of socialism for good measure. moral hazard. easy credit by the federal reserve. banks being backed by the feds and lending to risky 'sub prime' borrowers who cant pay the debt.

[angelofdeath]

But don't you think that it is good to have a society that is built in a way that everyone has a chance? Just because you don't maybe have kids doesn't mean that your taxes shouldn't go to education? I think if you choose where your tax money goes then your society will be screwed no one would fund the simple things like lighting or roads things like that. While you may be intelligent AOD there are huge numbers of people that can't grasp these things and society would be worse off with a bunch of rednecks putting all their taxes into defense and letting everything else go to he'll

 

In the uk we have private and nhs healthcare and it works fine

 

it doesnt matter what i 'think.' it matters if the society is voluntary. after all people 'thought' it was good to hold slaves and to keep them disarmed.

do you believe in voluntary interaction? and if so, then why do you like to use violence against people to get what YOU think is good for the collective?

 

because there isnt government involvement, doesnt mean certain institutions wont exist.

im 100% against forced charity.

my neighbors house burned down 2 weeks ago, and i gave them over a months worth of food. over 30 people did the same in the way of clothing, gift cards, etc etc. we didnt need the government to handle this problem. society can exist without a central plan.

 

what makes you think its just the 'rednecks' that put all the taxes into defense? the liberal establishment has been part of the military industrial complex since the military industrial complex came into being.

[Decyferon]

I think if the Market had been left unchecked with no regulation we would have been in this situation much sooner because the bankers would have made their personal fortune then left with their millions leaving all their investors shafted. Why would they have considered anyone other than themselves, and it isn't like it was a rogue bunch of bankers that caused this problem it was all of them

[angelofdeath]

what made all the bankers turn rogue and act irrationally?

the federal reserve and the federal regulatory apparatus which created incentives to earn large returns on sub prime loans.

 

[Decyferon]

it doesnt matter what i 'think.' it matters if the society is voluntary. after all people 'thought' it was good to hold slaves and to keep them disarmed.

do you believe in voluntary interaction? and if so, then why do you like to use violence against people to get what YOU think is good for the collective?

 

because there isnt government involvement, doesnt mean certain institutions wont exist.

im 100% against forced charity.

my neighbors house burned down 2 weeks ago, and i gave them over a months worth of food. over 30 people did the same in the way of clothing, gift cards, etc etc. we didnt need the government to handle this problem. society can exist without a central plan.

 

what makes you think its just the 'rednecks' that put all the taxes into defense? the liberal establishment has been part of the military industrial complex since the military industrial complex came into being.

 

well I'm not quite sure what you mean about using violence I never once suggested that

 

with taxes you need to ensure that you have enough money to fund the schools etc and if you the have people determine where their tax goes then you might not meet the required educational budgets and kids will suffer for it

 

I'm glad you helped your neighbour with food it was very charitable of you but would you have done the same for someone you don't know on the otherside of the country? I see my taxes helping educate kids helping people get healthcare when they need it, yes I disagree with paying for wars I disagree with but nothing is perfect and I am happy some of my taxes are used for good

[Decyferon]

what made all the bankers turn rogue and act irrationally?

the federal reserve and the federal regulatory apparatus which created incentives to earn large returns on sub prime loans.

 

 

 

The bankers did it themselves they got paid huge bonuses for selling worthless stocks and high risk portfolios. You can't just blame the fed when this was a worldwide problem involving bankers from all over the world. Bankers are self satisfying greedy scum bags who only think of themselves

[angelofdeath]

if you really want to learn about what happened, you should just read that book.

or listen to peter schiff on youtube.

i think its better to listen to people who got it right from the beginning, than listen to the same people who caused the problem point fingers

[Decyferon]

There should have been stricter regulations on their trading the FSA didn't even fully understand hedge fund trading and the whole sub prime thing and this is one of the reasons it went unchecked for so long. Had there been better understanding of the dodgy deals they could have stepped in and stopped the false manipulation of the stock markets.

 

I personally agree with regulation, business is corrupt and greedy and if left to it's own devices would only do what is best for their bank balance, corner the Market and screw the consumer, which is also why I'm against private healthcare because business comes before service or quality of care

[angelofdeath]

predatory pricing is a myth.

 

writes murray rothbard:

 

"For decades, indeed, opponents of the free market have claimed that many businesses gained their powerful status on the market by what is called "predatory price-cutting," that is, by driving their smaller competitors into bankruptcy by selling their goods below cost, and then reaping the reward of their unfair methods by raising their prices and thereby charging "monopoly prices" to the consumers. The claim is that while consumers may gain in the short run by price wars, "dumping," and selling below costs, they lose in the long run from the alleged monopoly. But, as we have seen, economic theory shows that this would be a mug's game, losing money for the "dumping" firms, and never really achieving a monopoly price. And sure enough, historical investigation has not turned up a single case where predatory pricing, when tried, was successful, and there are actually very few cases where it has even been tried."

[angelofdeath]

There should have been stricter regulations on their trading the FSA didn't even fully understand hedge fund trading and the whole sub prime thing and this is one of the reasons it went unchecked for so long. Had there been better understanding of the dodgy deals they could have stepped in and stopped the false manipulation of the stock markets.

 

I personally agree with regulation, business is corrupt and greedy and if left to it's own devices would only do what is best for their bank balance, corner the Market and screw the consumer, which is also why I'm against private healthcare because business comes before service or quality of care

 

i think we just had this same conversation... but...

 

i think everyone acknowledges wall street got 'drunk.'

but what everyone doesnt see is what made them make the decisions they made. it is the exact same thing as a mob of high school kids hop in a pick up truck, all drunk and drive off a cliff. everyone wants to talk about them being 'crazy' or 'greedy' or 'driving to fast' but they dont want to talk about the alcohol.

the 'alcohol' in the collapse was easy credit based on made up rates that a government created monopoly over the creation and issuance of credit decided they wanted to use. couple that with the moral hazard created by the federal regulatory apparatus.

 

its funny. people dont know the whole story. this is what gave wall street the 'alcohol' to act the way they did. its hilarious to me. the federal government finally got what they wanted. they wanted loans made to sub prime borrowers. since the inception of fannie and freddie and accelerated under the CRA, the federal government was FORCING those evil greedy bankers that didnt want to loan money out to risky borrowers, to loan money out to risky borrowers. the fed created the easy credit. the feds got what they want. easy credit and the dream of home ownership for the oppressed proletariat. now everyone is mad because the government 'let' it all happen, when in fact it was what they wanted!

 

people will never be happy. a few decades back everyone was mad because no one could get a home loan because banks wanted 20% down and a good income. then the feds set the stage for sub prime borrowers to take over, and everyone gets mad and blames the unregulated market! its hilarious.

 

i've asked this question before.

what exact regulations would of prevented this collapse and if they are instituted, will you, the opponents of the free market, be happy and will you then stop your crusade to stamp out free exchange in america?

the opponents of freedom have been saying this very same thing since the 1860's and it all accelerated during the progressive era. all we need is just ONE more regulation and everything will be fixed. they had to create the FED to stop recessions, which were all caused by government credit and monetary polices! they create the FED and they wind up with the biggest crash EVER in 1929. the gun control zealots since NFA 34 have been saying we just need ONE more law to stop all crime in america. and its to the point where gun ownership is infringed on a sever basis in the entire US. and crime is at its highest. but the gun control people just say they need just a few more sensible regulations... it never ends.

 

i'd like to hear WHEN will you have perfected everything? when will utopia be achieved?

 

i maintain that in these two cases... the meddlers will not stop until the market is totally socialized and all guns are confiscated from civilians and placed only in the hands of the military and LE.

i've never heard either of them be satisfied when they get their mandatory law passed. they immediately keep moving toward the ultimate goal of the TOTAL STATE.

[shai]

What caused this disaster was a combination of bad regulation and conditions that encouraged greed but I still think there's a need for some oversight.