|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Given that during his presidency, the prevailing position from the right has been whatever is the exact opposite from Obama's position, it is kind of hard to fault him for failing to compromise, whether it is "his fault" or not. Obviously this is my personal opinion, but if I am arguing with someone who opposes gay marriage, wants to defund PP, repeal the ACA, etc., I wouldn't be very forthcoming with a compromise either because I find those positions to be ridiculous and without merit. Both sides have been equally obstinate, and I am only lukewarm on Obama as a president. But it must be difficult for him to compromise when the right half of our country is so much further to the right than any other civilized nation on earth, and we refuse to ask ourselves why that is.
Also, I find it strange that xDaunt's definition of leadership is the ability to get shit done, regardless of whether or not the shit that gets done is worth doing. It was my understanding that is what Republicans hate about Obama, that he is able to act without their consent in Congress. I happen to agree with the latter sentiment, that acting for action's sake is pointless and often counterproductive: see our military response to 9/11. That was action to make hurt Americans feel better (under the most optimistic view of the surrounding events), not because it was the right thing to do.
I am all for reaching across the aisle to accomplish things that need accomplishing. Unfortunately, I think that the Republican party (as well as the Democrats, but to a lesser extent IMO) has traveled so far to the extreme end of the spectrum that there is very little both parties can see eye-to-eye on. Which makes compromise very difficult. How does a reasonable person compromise with someone like Ted Cruz or any of the other wingnuts who view their political responsibilities through the lens of evangelism?
|
xDaunt:
"Obama is overstepping his bounds with executive orders and is a tyrant"
"He's a weak leader"
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 23 2016 00:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2016 23:34 oneofthem wrote:
fascism as practiced heavily involves the military. the u.s. military isn't going to control the civilian government, and as much as people get paranoia about the security agencies they are pretty small and limited as well. a security state like russia is far closer to fascism than the u.s. Not really. The military has always been a bulwark of the old establishment that the fascist popular movement has had to overcome and bring under its control through the use of paramilitary forces. Fascists want to use the military but the military has no desire to be used by the kind of plebs who become fascists. The largest organized resistance to Hitler came from his own army, even after he appointed his own men to all the positions of power.
fascism is about more than hitler. all the authoritarian military run states are fascists.
for the nazi regime itself the resistance of the army does not preclude its primacy in organizing the economy and society of the state, or the use of secret police to exert control.
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 04:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely. The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right? I don't recall saying that, but thanks for clarifying for anyone reading who was confused.
When you argue "we had to go to war, the country was attacked" there is an assumption that you're arguing "we had to go to war with the people who attacked us". Not some completely different people.
I think most people would question the idea that "we had to go to war (with someone other than who attacked us), we were attacked" but because it's such a stupid idea it's assumed that cannot possibly be what was meant.
However it is what you said.
Bush created a nightmare.
|
I actually highly enjoy reading this thread despite disagreeing with the majority of posters. :D
But I just want to say, that basically no-one of the people I know is at all happy about obamacare and most of them think it is one of the worst things to happen to our country in a LONG time. I certainly do. The ones who had healthcare, invariably it got more expensive and worse, the ones who didn't well nothing changed really except now you decide whether or not you would rather pay the penalty or pay for some religious medi-share program that you would only use in case of actual disaster..... maybe if they let you. Anybody who had insurance through State Farm for instance, well they DROPPED my entire state. Not even joking. Personally, I have a $1000 penalty roughly this year and am a bit salty about it. As far as I can tell its only a good thing if you are more or less a worthless bum who makes nothing and doesn't contribute to society? (some obligatory rhetoric)
For the record, I have been so disgusted with the republican party and their nomination of worthless candidates that I refused to vote for either McCain or Romney (it doesnt matter in my state so I don't go vote for lesser evils they don't need mine to win). I think Trump is an absolute moron but is going to be the best available choice in 20+years haha.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
romney seemed to be the best republican candidate in 20 years, not trump. romney though would also be the high watermark for the gop for a while, unless the dems fuck it up which is very possible
|
My best friend would be dead without Obamacare so I might be biased.
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 04:31 ZasZ. wrote:
Given that during his presidency, the prevailing position from the right has been whatever is the exact opposite from Obama's position, it is kind of hard to fault him for failing to compromise, whether it is "his fault" or not. Obviously this is my personal opinion, but if I am arguing with someone who opposes gay marriage, wants to defund PP, repeal the ACA, etc., I wouldn't be very forthcoming with a compromise either because I find those positions to be ridiculous and without merit. Both sides have been equally obstinate, and I am only lukewarm on Obama as a president. But it must be difficult for him to compromise when the right half of our country is so much further to the right than any other civilized nation on earth, and we refuse to ask ourselves why that is.
Also, I find it strange that xDaunt's definition of leadership is the ability to get shit done, regardless of whether or not the shit that gets done is worth doing. It was my understanding that is what Republicans hate about Obama, that he is able to act without their consent in Congress. I happen to agree with the latter sentiment, that acting for action's sake is pointless and often counterproductive: see our military response to 9/11. That was action to make hurt Americans feel better (under the most optimistic view of the surrounding events), not because it was the right thing to do.
I am all for reaching across the aisle to accomplish things that need accomplishing. Unfortunately, I think that the Republican party (as well as the Democrats, but to a lesser extent IMO) has traveled so far to the extreme end of the spectrum that there is very little both parties can see eye-to-eye on. Which makes compromise very difficult. How does a reasonable person compromise with someone like Ted Cruz or any of the other wingnuts who view their political responsibilities through the lens of evangelism?
They could make trades?
I'll ban Islam if you ban Christianity from the public and political sphere?
I'll ban abortion if you get behind action on global warming?
I'll bomb some brown people if you let some out of jail?
|
My fiancée and I would have been foreclosed on if Obama care didn’t exist, so we are super biased. Zero complaints, way better than it was before.
|
On February 23 2016 04:50 Seuss wrote:
My best friend would be dead without Obamacare so I might be biased.
Yeah, I know more than a few people who have Obamacare to thank for them having the ability to go through with life-saving surgeries or obtain needed prescriptions. This notion that Obamacare is some easily judged piece of legislation doesn't stand up to scrutiny if one privies life-saving above the cost burden shifted onto the already insured.
Naturally, some folks don't moralize that way 
Edit: Good of KwarK to bring up the states' culpability in the matter; I must be getting old to have forgotten to bring that up. Funny how many of the criticisms of Obamacare actually relate back to NFIB v. Sibelius' dissolution of the state medicare expansion mandate!
|
United States42009 Posts
A lot of the people fucked by Obamacare are fucked because Obama put a lot of Federal money into making it work but individual states had the option to prevent the people who needed it in their state from getting that money, thus making them fucked. How that isn't a bigger issue is really quite amazing to me. They literally took healthcare away from the neediest people in their state in the hope that some of those needy people could die so that their dead bodies could be used to embarrass Obama. Not even hyperbole. Obama made Federal money available to give poor people healthcare and Republican state governors vetoed it to deliberately deny those people healthcare so that Obamacare would be a "failure".
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/resources/primers/medicaidmap
It's a disgrace.
|
On February 23 2016 04:55 KwarK wrote:
A lot of the people fucked by Obamacare are fucked because Obama put a lot of Federal money into making it work but individual states had the option to prevent the people who needed it in their state from getting that money, thus making them fucked. How that isn't a bigger issue is really quite amazing to me. They literally took healthcare away from the neediest people in their state in the hope that some of those needy people could die so that their dead bodies could be used to embarrass Obama. Not even hyperbole. Obama made Federal money available to give poor people healthcare and Republican state governors vetoed it to deliberately deny those people healthcare so that Obamacare would be a "failure".
Every vote for a Republican, anywhere and anytime, hurts someone. Democrats might fail to help everyone, but you can be damned sure Republican votes hurt.
// Flint
|
See while thats great and all I have a philosophical problem with paying a 1000$ uninsured penalty, ie. a good portion of MY house payment so that someone else can make their rent AND have health insurance (which I don't have). I know, I'm an extreme right wing conservative with a hole in my soul.
Its not like there wasn't already welfare programs in place that provided financial assistance to people who needed healthcare and couldn't afford it. (Not that I feel like getting in to it, but my basic position is that health insurance in general pretty much fucks up the whole healthcare system.)
Its not like I make tons of money, I just happen to be 29, single, and self employed. A demographic which gets kind of screwed by taxes/obamacare and is also not really present on this forum.
|
On February 23 2016 04:55 KwarK wrote:A lot of the people fucked by Obamacare are fucked because Obama put a lot of Federal money into making it work but individual states had the option to prevent the people who needed it in their state from getting that money, thus making them fucked. How that isn't a bigger issue is really quite amazing to me. They literally took healthcare away from the neediest people in their state in the hope that some of those needy people could die so that their dead bodies could be used to embarrass Obama. Not even hyperbole. Obama made Federal money available to give poor people healthcare and Republican state governors vetoed it to deliberately deny those people healthcare so that Obamacare would be a "failure". https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/resources/primers/medicaidmapIt's a disgrace.
See: Louisiana, though thank god our new gov. is expanding Medicare now.
Also Kentucky is a joke. The new dude, forget his name, campaigned on getting Obamacare out of the state. What he did was shut down Kynect... meaning people have to go get coverage through healthcare.gov. He's still taking Medicare expansion money and everything. Mission accomplished?
|
Matt Bevin is a fucking lunatic and it's only a matter of time before he goes down in flames alongside his state.
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 05:06 Atreides wrote:
See while thats great and all I have a philosophical problem with paying a 1000$ uninsured penalty, ie. a good portion of MY house payment so that someone else can make their rent AND have health insurance (which I don't have). I know, I'm an extreme right wing conservative with a hole in my soul.
Its not like there wasn't already welfare programs in place that provided financial assistance to people who needed healthcare and couldn't afford it. (Not that I feel like getting in to it, but my basic position is that health insurance in general pretty much fucks up the whole healthcare system.)
Its not like I make tons of money, I just happen to be 29, single, and self employed. A demographic which gets kind of screwed by taxes/obamacare and is also not really present on this forum.
Did you apply for an Obamacare exemption?
Also you get to deduct 25% of health insurance premium costs if self employed and are eligible for an Obamacare Premium Subsidy (tax credit). To me it seems like Obama is trying to give you cheap insurance if you're self employed and you're going "fuck you, I'd rather pay $1000 and still have no insurance".
Did you check with a CPA about what Obamacare meant for your business?
|
On February 23 2016 05:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 05:06 Atreides wrote:
See while thats great and all I have a philosophical problem with paying a 1000$ uninsured penalty, ie. a good portion of MY house payment so that someone else can make their rent AND have health insurance (which I don't have). I know, I'm an extreme right wing conservative with a hole in my soul.
Its not like there wasn't already welfare programs in place that provided financial assistance to people who needed healthcare and couldn't afford it. (Not that I feel like getting in to it, but my basic position is that health insurance in general pretty much fucks up the whole healthcare system.)
Its not like I make tons of money, I just happen to be 29, single, and self employed. A demographic which gets kind of screwed by taxes/obamacare and is also not really present on this forum. Did you apply for an Obamacare exemption?
I made ~60k the last two years, which is not that much living in Alaska and self-employed but enough that obamacare thinks I could afford health insurance.
|
On February 23 2016 04:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:25 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely. The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right? I don't recall saying that, but thanks for clarifying for anyone reading who was confused. When you argue "we had to go to war, the country was attacked" there is an assumption that you're arguing "we had to go to war with the people who attacked us". Not some completely different people. I think most people would question the idea that "we had to go to war (with someone other than who attacked us), we were attacked" but because it's such a stupid idea it's assumed that cannot possibly be what was meant. However it is what you said. Bush created a nightmare.
That's not what I said, although I appreciate that you relish the chance to jump at calling someone stupid. The war in Iraq was very obviously the one I'm talking about being up for argument. The main point is that when a country gets attacked, it's no longer their choice whether they're at war. And that was the context - unlike Plansix I don't see it fruitful to blame Bush for go[ing] to war when the enemy drew first blood. So it doesn't make much sense to mock Bush's leadership on that count like he's a simple-minded war hawk - anyone would have called the military in that situation (including, for example, Congress).
|
United States42009 Posts
On February 23 2016 05:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:45 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:25 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 04:12 KwarK wrote:On February 23 2016 04:04 oBlade wrote:On February 23 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2016 03:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." I was gonna say something similar. Losing two wars simultaneously is no measure of strength by my mind. Apparently the sign of a strong leader is to go to war on two fronts and then cut taxes for the most wealthy people in the US. Because that is what great leaders do, things that make their people happy. And by people, I mean rich people. Edit: Let not even talk about the damage Bush did on the global stage. My god, the nightmare he created and the joke we were when he was in office. You can make an argument that one of the wars was superfluous (I would disagree), but the country was attacked - to say he created a nightmare seems to me to miss the thing entirely. The country was attacked by a group of Saudis, you do know Saddam wasn't behind it, right? I don't recall saying that, but thanks for clarifying for anyone reading who was confused. When you argue "we had to go to war, the country was attacked" there is an assumption that you're arguing "we had to go to war with the people who attacked us". Not some completely different people. I think most people would question the idea that "we had to go to war (with someone other than who attacked us), we were attacked" but because it's such a stupid idea it's assumed that cannot possibly be what was meant. However it is what you said. Bush created a nightmare. That's not what I said, although I appreciate that you relish the chance to jump at calling someone stupid. The war in Iraq was very obviously the one I'm talking about being up for argument. The main point is that when a country gets attacked, it's no longer their choice whether they're at war. And that was the context - unlike Plansix I don't see it fruitful to blame Bush for go[ing] to war when the enemy drew first blood. So it doesn't make much sense to mock Bush's leadership on that count like he's a simple-minded war hawk - anyone would have called the military in that situation (including, for example, Congress).
Would they though? The US was not attacked by another state, it was attacked by a stateless group with a stateless ideology. That doesn't automatically mean you're at war, even if you seem to think it does. I appreciate you jumping to the conclusion that what you said was stupid because it was and it saves me time.
However even if we accept that the act of being attacked by a stateless group automatically means you're at war (although with whom is unclear because again, stateless group), that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for who you designate this war with. In some kind of weird alternate reality where every hostile act (like the US bugging German politicians for example) automatically means that Germany must declare war on someone that still doesn't mean Germany should declare war on the wrong people. Couldn't they just go "you know what, let's declare peace" or better yet question this convention that whenever anyone does anything to you war must be immediately declared on someone.
You can have a military solution, such as bombing training camps, without deciding to throw darts at a map of the Middle East and declare war based on the result. I'm amazed you cannot see this. Just because 9/11 merited a military reaction does not mean that war had to be declared on someone and certainly doesn't mean war had to be declared on people who had nothing to do with it.
It was a choice and it was a fuckup.
|
Being attacked does not somehow obliterate a nation's agency as to declaring war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
