| Blogs > {CC}StealthBlue |
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
That is ok with you? Personally i don't believe so. The fact that the chief of staff is buddy buddy with this blagojevich says alot. Change we can believe in? no. Stop kidding yourself. It's barak and Clinton's people in the cabinet. We have hillary, and bill richardson so far. Clinton 2.0 imo | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 22 2009 16:56 Misrah wrote: So your saying that it is ok that one of baraks top officials was involved "Among those in Mr. Obama's inner circle, Mr. Emanuel had one of the closest relationships to Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat." That is ok with you? Personally i don't believe so. The fact that the chief of staff is buddy buddy with this blagojevich says alot. Change we can believe in? no. Stop kidding yourself. It's barak and Clinton's people in the cabinet. We have hillary, and bill richardson so far. Clinton 2.0 imo No, it's not ok for him to be involved in the scandal. Luckily there is 0 reasonable evidence he was, so you can move on now. Assuming everyone who talked to him about anything is involved in the "conspiracy" is ridiculous, especially considering that Rahm Emanuel is the chief of staff and really has no choice but to discuss senate appointments with Blagojevich, as well as Patterson, and any governor. Nothing shady about it at all. Ok, he chose experienced and credible democrats who worked under Clinton, so what? Otherwise he'd be dipping into the Carter administration and he'd have to go to the graveyard to find his Secretaries. 2 people does not signify the return of an old administration. You could say this about any president. He's also brought a lot of fresh faces to the table, and some experienced ones. That's a smart thing to do. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
While the current financial crisis can really start back in the conception of fannie and freddy mack- Clinton was a prime catalyst in creating the financial meltdown (along with some really outrageous leveraging by some investment banks). Sub prime loans... Anyway im sure you know the whole story about the "great society" and all of that stuff the recent democratic presidents always try and push through government. So in light of all this, you deem Clinton successful? I disagree. Clinton failed, and his "economic gain" was mealy the spin of of what Regan had salvaged out of the 1982 recession. Basically, IMO barak brings nothing new to the table. He has ZERO experience, ZERO ideas, he is a good orator, but simply his ideas- especially his more grandiose idea of "universal health care" are all talk- and frankly a poor idea at best. For example: Barak said that to cover the defecate that universal health care will cause the US tax payers, he can save 80Billion by switching the medical files all from paper to digital. basically he is going to change everything to computers, and magically save "80 billion" In reality quite the contrary is true: Switching to computers is not going to save any money, in fact it is probably going to cost more money, and cause more medical catastrophe. (source is from times, from some medical journal: i will find it for you) Basically my whole problem with barak is this: more taxes. I don't want to give more to the government, hell i already give enough. America should be outraged, at the amount of money we give the government now. yet barak is going for more? Universal health care is a joke. His fix for the economy is a joke. He is promising for more public works programs, like fixing our highway system ext. to help bring us out of the recession. Do you know what strikes me as funny? FDR did the EXACT SAME THING during the great depression, and guess what? It failed. So i don't get it? Why does everyone like the guy? Is it because he is black? Because the media tells you to? Because Colbert and Anderson cooper love the guy? Is it because he can speak well? Is it because "lets jump on the I HATE BUSH BANDWAGON?" I just don't get it. | ||
|
yubee
United States3826 Posts
Misrah: "Your saying that Clinton was a "good" president? I disagree entirely." Doc: "Ok, he chose experienced and credible democrats who worked under Clinton, so what?" Misrah: "Your saying that Clinton was a "good" president? I disagree entirely." misrah you are like the dumbest person in the entire world | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
On January 22 2009 17:39 Misrah wrote: Basically, IMO barak brings nothing new to the table. He has ZERO experience, ZERO ideas, he is a good orator, but simply his ideas- especially his more grandiose idea of "universal health care" are all talk- and frankly a poor idea at best. First of all, spelling Barack's name correctly would make you appear less incompetent. Obama has lots and lots of ideas, certainly more than Bush before him. Some good, some bad of course. As for universal health care, wouldn't you like to be cared for even if you were poor? America is very backward in many social matters, but let me tell you that public health care is certainly not a poor idea. Survival of the fittest does not constitute a good society system. For example: Barak said that to cover the defecate that universal health care will cause the US tax payers, he can save 80Billion by switching the medical files all from paper to digital. basically he is going to change everything to computers, and magically save "80 billion" In reality quite the contrary is true: Switching to computers is not going to save any money, in fact it is probably going to cost more money, and cause more medical catastrophe. (source is from times, from some medical journal: i will find it for you) I have no idea if 80 billion is a realistic number, but it's quite obvious that running records digitally is by far more efficient. Of course the transition costs much, but a lot can be saved long-term. We haven't had a medical catastrophe in Austria yet, although we use this mysterious futuristic device they call a "computer". Basically my whole problem with barak is this: more taxes. I don't want to give more to the government, hell i already give enough. America should be outraged, at the amount of money we give the government now. yet barak is going for more? Universal health care is a joke. His fix for the economy is a joke. He is promising for more public works programs, like fixing our highway system ext. to help bring us out of the recession. Do you know what strikes me as funny? FDR did the EXACT SAME THING during the great depression, and guess what? It failed. You do realize that you get something in return for your tax money? Universal health care mentioned above, infrastructure, education, retirement pensions, and - since you seem like the kind of guy to care about that - military "defense". Having people pay high taxes is a good thing, since it enables public benefits for everybody and reduces the rift between rich and poor. So i don't get it? Why does everyone like the guy? Is it because he is black? Because the media tells you to? Because Colbert and Anderson cooper love the guy? Is it because he can speak well? Is it because "lets jump on the I HATE BUSH BANDWAGON?" I just don't get it. Because McCain is like a hundred years old and Clinton is a hag? Because he gives the impression of being an idealistic, charismatic leader? Because he stands for everything anti-Bush? Not to say he's a messiah, but better than the other candidates by far. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
I spell baraks name because it is a sign of my respect, or lack of respect for the man. All he has done so far is talk. Talk is cheap, and until he gets his administration underway, and is a year or two in I would finally be able to make an evaluation about how he is doing in the white house. If he has done well, and America is a better place- then I am wrong. Until that happens, i will spell his name however i want. Second: About the poor people. I will never be poor, because i have a brain and i plan to use it. My parents are not helping me with college, and yet here i am- going to college. Education is key for a successful life. That and hard work. You need nothing more. Do i care about poor people? Yes i am going to school to be a doctor. Second, considering that universal health care is probably the worst idea ever for a nation is because of the following: 1. people are more willing to go to the doctor and use more expensive treatments because they are free. 2. costs a ton of money. Money out of my pocket, that i worked for. 3. Bigger government is never ever the answer. 4. The government may not "cover" more expensive, and or specialized treatments. So what then? 5. Read this: http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2237 I am so glad that you socially progressive people in Austria find Government regulated health care so attractive. I will make sure to tell all of my socially backwards American friends to change up quick. Tell me how does it feel to have tons of your hard earned money swiped up by the government? Also the transition from paper to digital- you think it will go flawlessly? Also teaching all of the medical staff at hospitals to use the new systems will also go flawlessly? You think that if those two occurrences were to occur that there would not be a significant mistakes and or blunders? Your an optimist i give you that. Something in return for my tax money? OK lets take a look at your list: Health care: I will be able to afford it later in life. Until then, i am thankful that my father has a health care insurance plan from his job- that still covers me for a few more years- after that it is a risk i am willing to take. Infrastructure: Yes i expect to pay taxes for this. I need a road, i need electricity and sewer pipes. (however you could make the argument that privatizing these amenities could be more cost efficient.) Education: Public schools? Are you joking? Public schools are terrible, compared to private schools. (Hell barak believes this as well. His kids are attending a really snazzy private prep school) Retirement pensions? wtf? Save money yourself. If your smart enough to put money away and save and invest properly, all should be well. Social security is funny- because by the time i am that old- it isn't going to be around. Military: I don't condone the military, and i find it hilariously funny that America spends so much of my money on bombs- when they could be doing so much more useful things, like perfecting solar power, or going towards cancer research. So no, i am not that type. So mccain is "like a hundred years old and Clinton is a hag?" What are you talking about? Typical media dogma. Also that hag is now our secretary of state. "Gives the impression of being an idealistic, charismatic leader." I would like you to take notice :Gives the impression is very important. He has done nothing but talk. And no- he is not the best candidate. Ron Paul was. | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
On January 22 2009 19:33 Misrah wrote: @ scorch I spell baraks name because it is a sign of my respect, or lack of respect for the man. All he has done so far is talk. Talk is cheap, and until he gets his administration underway, and is a year or two in I would finally be able to make an evaluation about how he is doing in the white house. If he has done well, and America is a better place- then I am wrong. Until that happens, i will spell his name however i want. Do what you want then, Missrat. Now that was mature, wasn't it? Second: About the poor people. I will never be poor, because i have a brain and i plan to use it. My parents are not helping me with college, and yet here i am- going to college. Education is key for a successful life. That and hard work. You need nothing more. Good for you. What about people who aren't blessed with a brain? Or those who have one but their company needs to close down? Do i care about poor people? Yes i am going to school to be a doctor. Second, considering that universal health care is probably the worst idea ever for a nation is because of the following: 1. people are more willing to go to the doctor and use more expensive treatments because they are free. Maybe a bit, yes. But hardly anyone takes (or gets) an unneeded treatment just for the hell of it. 2. costs a ton of money. Money out of my pocket, that i worked for. Other people's money too, if that makes you feel better. Everybody pays, and everybody gains. Also, it would cost money to get a treatment privately too. The total sum would probably be more or less the same. 3. Bigger government is never ever the answer. One government, or managements of a hundred health companies? 4. The government may not "cover" more expensive, and or specialized treatments. So what then? You pay the difference yourself, just like you would pay more for an expensive treatment in a private system.That article is of low quality, incredibly polemic and biased, just look at the first sentence. Arguments can be found against each of the points, although I'm too lazy to write that down (Easy way out, I know, but it's really a lot of work). Point 12 makes for a good laugh by the way  I am so glad that you socially progressive people in Austria find Government regulated health care so attractive. I will make sure to tell all of my socially backwards American friends to change up quick. Tell me how does it feel to have tons of your hard earned money swiped up by the government? I shouldn't have said backward, I apologize. I don't mind paying taxes at all. I'd even like to increase the percentage very rich people have to pay since they'll still have lots of money anyway. I'm not a communist by the way. Also the transition from paper to digital- you think it will go flawlessly? Also teaching all of the medical staff at hospitals to use the new systems will also go flawlessly? You think that if those two occurrences were to occur that there would not be a significant mistakes and or blunders? Your an optimist i give you that. I already acknowledged there would be problems and high costs for the transition. The long-term savings should easily make up for that though. I'm sure you're not going to write records on paper in 200 years, so the transition has to be made sometime anyway. Something in return for my tax money? OK lets take a look at your list: You're an optimist, I give you that Health care: I will be able to afford it later in life. Until then, i am thankful that my father has a health care insurance plan from his job- that still covers me for a few more years- after that it is a risk i am willing to take.  If you wanna gamble without an insurance, that's cheaper of course.Infrastructure: Yes i expect to pay taxes for this. I need a road, i need electricity and sewer pipes. (however you could make the argument that privatizing these amenities could be more cost efficient.) Good luck when the largest private sewer company goes bancrupt, or the Chinese buy the most important power companies and turn off the light at will.Education: Public schools? Are you joking? Public schools are terrible, compared to private schools. (Hell barak believes this as well. His kids are attending a really snazzy private prep school) Might US public schools be terrible due to a lack of funding? Public schools are the norm in Europe, and I consider myself adequately educated. So why can't it work in America?Retirement pensions? wtf? Save money yourself. If your smart enough to put money away and save and invest properly, all should be well. Social security is funny- because by the time i am that old- it isn't going to be around. What about the people who couldn't afford to save money? Should they starve when they are old? Or people who are to stupid to save? Our system forces you to save, they take it away from your loan directly (if you earn enough). You are free to save privately on top of that if you can afford to.Military: I don't condone the military, and i find it hilariously funny that America spends so much of my money on bombs- when they could be doing so much more useful things, like perfecting solar power, or going towards cancer research. So no, i am not that type. Good to hear, I agree. So mccain is "like a hundred years old and Clinton is a hag?" What are you talking about? Typical media dogma. Also that hag is now our secretary of state. McCain is definitely very old, that's not a media dogma. Plus I don't embrace his republican ideals, but that's subjective of course. Clinton stands for everything I despise in politicians: hunger for power, falseness, calculating, negative campaigning; no, I just don't like her. "Gives the impression of being an idealistic, charismatic leader." I would like you to take notice :Gives the impression is very important. He has done nothing but talk. I know, that's why I wrote "gives the impression". We can't say more definite things yet, but I didn't even like the impressions the other candidates gave. We'll see how things turn out. And no- he is not the best candidate. Ron Paul was. Let's say the best of the three candidates who ever had a serious chance. | ||
ProTech_MediC
United States498 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On January 22 2009 19:33 Misrah wrote: Ron Paul was. There we go. That's what everyone was waiting for. So let me ask you, have you ever read Road to Serfdom or Constitution of Liberty or is your super right wing bias based solely off .info websites like most Ron Paul fans? | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
Do what you want then, Missrat. Now that was mature, wasn't it? I don't give a shit. I will always stand by my beliefs, call me what you like but i think that my way- is the right way. Good for you. What about people who aren't blessed with a brain? Or those who have one but their company needs to close down? People with out a brain? Unheard of. Also for the ones that company closes down- too bad for you. There is inherit risk in anything. It is impossible to try and reduce the risk of living through government. The only thing you can count on is yourself. Your hard work, dedication and spirit will always see you through the day. Maybe a bit, yes. But hardly anyone takes (or gets) an unneeded treatment just for the hell of it. So what it should never be there in the first place. Also it is so prevalent that there is actually a medical condition knows as Münchausen syndrome which describes exactly what you are saying. Other people's money too, if that makes you feel better. Everybody pays, and everybody gains. Also, it would cost money to get a treatment privately too. The total sum would probably be more or less the same. Socialism has never worked, and will never work. Communism will also fail. Until the world can function at a resource base economy- capitalism is the way to go. America> Austria. And no- i don't care about the money, i care about people that expect things given to them in life. Life is hard, unfair- and biased. To hell with that. If you belive in yourself and put your mind to it and work- anything is possible. Might US public schools be terrible due to a lack of funding? Public schools are the norm in Europe, and I consider myself adequately educated. So why can't it work in America? yes and no. No amount of money will make teachers teach better. It is the education system inherent that is the down fall. Private schools have more progressive curriculum- and don't have to deal with the "no child left behind shit- or teachers union." The system is inherently flawed. What about the people who couldn't afford to save money? Should they starve when they are old? Or people who are to stupid to save? Our system forces you to save, they take it away from your loan directly (if you earn enough). You are free to save privately on top of that if you can afford to. I don't have an answer to all of the problems. But there are programs for people like this. Also when people are old- they have family to look after them. I work in a nursing home, and i see what happens when families don't look after their grandparents. It's sad. For people that are too stupid? They need to wake up. Taking from you directly? You can have your bank do that for you- and place it in a saving's account. Problem solved. So really if you are stupid, don't have a work ethic and don't have any skill, you fail. As you should. Good to hear, I agree. Out of curiosity- how do you feel about nuclear power? McCain is definitely very old, that's not a media dogma. Plus I don't embrace his republican ideals, but that's subjective of course. Clinton stands for everything I despise in politicians: hunger for power, falseness, calculating, negative campaigning; no, I just don't like her. That is fine that you don't like him. But don't like the man because of his ideas- not because of his age. As for Clinton, i despise her as well. But she is our new secretary of state. woo hoo. I hate billary. I know, that's why I wrote "gives the impression". We can't say more definite things yet, but I didn't even like the impressions the other candidates gave. We'll see how things turn out. That is the problem. The "impression" the candidates give us is so filtered during the race for president- that you can never tell what they will do in office. It's politics. And scummy politicians. Let's say the best of the three candidates who ever had a serious chance. Even so you always have to try, and fight! Scorch i respect you, and your ideas. But I think that life should be about what you earn, and what you do while you are on this rock. It's your life, your spirit, vs the world. Make of it what you will. I know for a fact that things go wrong, but hey you can always try and make the best of it. That is why i hate communism and socialism- they give things away. I can't stand that. some things are inherent human rights- but beyond that? I believe that you are the fabricator of your own destiny, and i am sure as hell not going to let anyone leach off me. (they should be living their own lives) So that is why i love constitutionalists- capitalists and all that jazz. (until resource based economy comes along) | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Socialism has been in place for hundreds of years. What you want is simply to pay less taxes because you think government is inherently inefficient, but society should be based on justice, not efficiency. And how do you expect capitalism to function if the banking industry had died? Credit cards are going to burst next, and you think we should just let Citi and co. fall under? Do you have any idea what the long term consequences would be? They won't pick themselves off and do better next time, because it'll be an incredibly long time before there is a next time, meanwhile consumer spending without credit will send most businesses under. | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On January 22 2009 16:56 Misrah wrote: So your saying that it is ok that one of baraks top officials was involved "Among those in Mr. Obama's inner circle, Mr. Emanuel had one of the closest relationships to Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat." That is ok with you? Personally i don't believe so. The fact that the chief of staff is buddy buddy with this blagojevich says alot. Change we can believe in? no. Stop kidding yourself. It's barak and Clinton's people in the cabinet. We have hillary, and bill richardson so far. Clinton 2.0 imo LOLOLOLOL "Among those in Mr. Obama's inner circle, Mr. Emanuel had one of the closest relationships to Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat." ahahahahaha I would prefer them to all be EQUALLY CLOSE TO BLAGOJEVICH | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
We can't find a consensus on the fundamental choice between capitalism and socialism. Let me just say that I believe it is our task to care for people who don't have as much as we do. Since people don't do that deliberately out of avarice, it is the government's task to force them. In first world countries, there is enough money for us all to live, it's all just a matter of how to distribute it. It is ok that some people have more than others, but enough is enough. When one makes twenty million, ten thousand people lose. This time of financial crises is an unlucky moment to deem unbounded capitalism the ultimate solution to all problems, as you basically do When things don't work out, bankers are more than happy that there is a government to socialize losses, whereas they had their private winnings earlier. I believe pure communism cannot work either, because humans are to greedy by nature for that to work. There has to be a middle ground.I find many of your views on social topics disturbingly cold-hearted. When people fail in life, it is often not their fault. Not everybody who is poor is a lazy moron. A country's social system needs to care for everybody. Yes, there are a few people who abuse this privilege, but I say this sacrifice must be made for the benefit of the many who really need the help. Well maybe I'm too idealistic for my own good  As for nuclear power: i have ambivalent views. In Austria, we had a referendum in the 1970s against nuclear power, so you basically inherit a good portion of skepticism when you grow up here. There are undoubtedly huge dangers with nuclear power. When something goes boom, shit hits the fan big time. On the other hand, it is indeed a cheap and clean source of energy. But when we get so much energy "for free" by nature (sun, wind, tides, rivers), why shouldn't we use that energy instead? It is basically a tradeoff between money and safety. For me, nuclear power ranks in front of coal, gas etc., but behind renewable clean energies. | ||
Chill
Calgary25961 Posts
On January 22 2009 16:41 Misrah wrote: educate yourself. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122926660096904673.html http://www.huliq.com/28364/man-living-with-no-brain-puzzles-scientists | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 22 2009 22:56 Chill wrote: http://www.huliq.com/28364/man-living-with-no-brain-puzzles-scientists Touche' | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
Everyone else, ill get to later. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On January 23 2009 00:11 Misrah wrote: As usual chill- coming in with a one liner. The hall mark of your life. Surprised it took you so long buddy. Everyone else, ill get to later. Flaming moderators is for cool kids. | ||
|
EsX_Raptor
United States2801 Posts
On January 22 2009 15:17 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Oh I figured you were one of those idiots who put something like Venezuela as their country to be cheeky. Sorry, in that case I get it. :/ how awkward I don't know who the fuck you think you are to be saying who is from where. Just because my English seems so retardedly good doesn't neccesarily imply I'm not from Venezuela (Spanish is my first language) Or do you want me to give you some real proof? Oh wait, I don't think you understand a single Spanish word whatsoever, that won't work. I was actually feeling some kind of sympathy towards you for the fact that your hispanic friend passed away, but seeing how retarded you can get about shit you don't even know just tells me how much you're still stuck in 7th grade. That's it, I won't lower my level any further, do not reply as it will be of no use. | ||
|
SmoKing2012
United States385 Posts
On January 22 2009 14:40 koreasilver wrote: It also happened to have the largest number of attendees in American history by far, and they let anyone that wanted to attend, attend. So they made some money out of it, although it probably didn't cover the costs at all. They made about $45 mil through contributions, the other $100 mil plus was taxpayer money. Money that could've been spent feeding poor people, or given back to the consumers it was taken from (something that would actually help the economy). Secondly, would you really lash out against your lap dog? What? | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
edit: Israel is America's lap dog. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g20087 shahzam1088 JimRising  783ViBE213 Skadoodle208 UpATreeSC157 WinterStarcraft88 Trikslyr79 RuFF_SC220 |
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
PiG Sty Festival
Replay Cast
Code For Giants Cup
SOOP
ShoWTimE vs Clem
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
