|
On October 16 2010 07:16 MadVillain wrote:
I love all the douches bashing Obama. Its the same tired bullshit over and over again, a candidate says he's going to do all this crap (ITS ALWAYS more than they actually can, or that people deep down actually believe) and the bipartisan completely illogical nature of our politics makes it so he can't do anything.
Obama's problem isn't that he hasn't done anything. He has accomplished A LOT. His problem is that a majority of Americans do not like what he has done so far, and like even less what he is planning to do in the future. The issue is one of policy and substance.
On October 16 2010 07:16 MadVillain wrote:
xDaunt says that Jimmy Carter is the worst president of all time.
I say George Bush was the worst president of all time.
Guess what? They're both equally valid statements. Because in politics nothing is based off logic or off of evidence, its based on people's opinions and self interest, and what they're parents told them. Honestly xDaunt how can you really say that the next presidential candidate is is going to be better? If he is republican all the republican's are going to say "This is who we needed the whole, time" If he is democratic all the republicans will say "This guys is a retard I'm not going to agree with anything he says." And vice versa. It's really simple.
Actually, I said that Jimmy Carter was "one of the worst presidents" -- not THE worst. I don't really know who deserves that title. In full disclosure, I'm not a fan of Bush either.
On October 16 2010 07:16 MadVillain wrote:
Though if you want my opinion its this: I refuse to support any candidate who puts any baseless restrictions on scientific research. Oddly enough (not really) it's always republicans who fit this trend, thus I'm democratic. (Restricitng stem cell research?? Really!?! How fucking moronic are you?) Also republicans and there supporters tend to be religious nuts for some reason.
What, you don't see the ethical issues with stem cell research? More importantly, almost all of the arguments over research funding is whether the government (ie TAXPAYERS) are going to fund the research. Private enterprise is generally free to invest in whatever research it wants (with some very important exceptions).
|
No I don't see the ethical issues with stem cell research. How can one take themselves seriously when they consider a couple hundred cells arranged in a manner that is so far from human that anyone who wasn't a scientist wouldn't recognize it? The scientific benefits are simply too great for any baseless moral qualms to get in the way. Republicans attempt to hinder the killing of a lump of cells, yet have no problems engaging in combat that kills LIVING humans for literally 0 gain.
Republicans seem to think that scientific evidence has a liberal bias (see global warming, and almost every environmental issue) and actively move to restrict its propogation. It wrong. I mean I wonder how many of these republicans actually care about stem cells, abortion etc and those issues? Most just want to get into office.
Edit: restrictions on embryonic stem cell research has resulted in other ways to get stem cells which is a benefit, so i suppose we can thank them for that.
|
On October 16 2010 06:26 JoelB wrote:just found that ... probably old but still kinda funny and true  + Show Spoiler +seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts
I don't really mind part of my medical insurance premium going to the profits of a company. Better than the same percentage going to the debt we don't have the money for. If our government did completely run healthcare, whos to say they won't do the same thing they did with Social Security? Pay off current debts with premiums, and print more money to pay claims. At least insurance companies are obligated to someone besides their own inflated egos.
What it boils down to is class warfare and jealousy. That video tells me that the narrator is jealous that the demonized "investor" gets rewarded for his or her prudence and thrift.
If a business is run poorly, they go bankrupt. If the government is run poorly, then they tax the hell out of all of us. Is this view so radical??
Edit: Also, entitlements are what is ruining America. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My fellow Americans owe me NOTHING. If I choose not to work hard, then I might not have health insurance. Entirely my fault then. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are sure to have Paul's vote. The problem is when there are no more Peters left (no pun intended).
|
Did that video just say that government is efficient?
sorry but.. lolololol efficient at what? How do you measure that? There's no gain or loss in the state, so there can't be a measure of success either. At most there's popularity contests and polls, which are reduced to hunches by the part of representatives and bureaucrats on what must be done. Every other measure is taken from the market, information which is formed voluntarily.
Speaking of polls, it is amazing that congress and the executive can go about their business as usual w\ ratings of <40%, <20%, etc. Customer satisfaction not guaranteed for sure.
|
On October 16 2010 08:12 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2010 06:26 JoelB wrote:just found that ... probably old but still kinda funny and true + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A&feature=related seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts I don't really mind part of my medical insurance premium going to the profits of a company. Better than the same percentage going to the debt we don't have the money for. If our government did completely run healthcare, whos to say they won't do the same thing they did with Social Security? Pay off current debts with premiums, and print more money to pay claims. At least insurance companies are obligated to someone besides their own inflated egos. What it boils down to is class warfare and jealousy. That video tells me that the narrator is jealous that the demonized "investor" gets rewarded for his or her prudence and thrift. If a business is run poorly, they go bankrupt. If the government is run poorly, then they tax the hell out of all of us. Is this view so radical?? Edit: Also, entitlements are what is ruining America. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My fellow Americans owe me NOTHING. If I choose not to work hard, then I might not have health insurance. Entirely my fault then. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are sure to have Paul's vote. The problem is when there are no more Peters left (no pun intended).
guess what there are always people who would like to work hard and everything but then they get hit by cancer ... so, they deserve to die (or get poor) because of what? bad luck? Freedom is not an excuse for selfish behavior ... social liabilities of course hinder your personal welfare but increases the welfare of the society as a whole (which is worth more) ... is this communistic? Well then i'm a communist (and EVERYONE in europe is ... cuz we all have those systems and they work without printing money which is btw not a problem of your social dept but of your fed) ... i like to use a different definition for this:
Freedom in Responsibility
|
"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
Are you shitting me?!
How can ANYONE vote for somebody who actually says those words?!
What is this
I don't even
|
On October 16 2010 05:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2010 05:43 JoelB wrote:
Most people here also envy america for having Obama because especially in germany politicans are usually boring, ugly and completly without passion. Seeing that guy fighting with such a passion inflamed the demand for similar politicians in germany ... maybe thats why many still hold him like some sort of a messiah which of course is just unfair. The expectations were just FAR to
high for a living person ... Obama brought the unfair expectations upon himself. When you speak like a messiah and make promises like a messiah, you better damn well be the messiah when you enter office. Obama played his messianic status up and now he's failing to deliver. He had every advanage going for him when he entered office: a friendly media that wanted him to succeed, large congressional majorities, and tremendous good will from the American people. He has squandered all of it and may very well be remembered like Jimmy Carter: one of the worst presidents of all time. Don't regret not having Obama in Germany. He's all talk, no substance.
Actually, Obama explicitly addressed this in the exact opposite manner, repeatedly noting that times would be hard. He also never spoke or made "promises like a Messiah" - the fact that you have not been able to bring up a specific speech where Obama made such a claim shows a lot. If anything, the nearest "messianic" claim he made is universal health care - which he did end up passing.
Every advantage going for him when he entered office?
The US bogged down in two world wars.
A global recession.
|
On October 16 2010 09:30 dcemuser wrote:
"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
Are you shitting me?!
How can ANYONE vote for somebody who actually says those words?!
What is this
I don't even
Unfortunately, the majority of Americans simply believe things at face value. A lot of our populace has forgotten what it means to be questioning instead of submissive citizens.
Ironically, it's probably teenagers that are more questioning and facepalming at this tomfoolery. Our experience with Internet trolling probably allows us to think twice when we consider what people are telling us.
|
On October 16 2010 09:05 JoelB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2010 08:12 Scruffy wrote:On October 16 2010 06:26 JoelB wrote:just found that ... probably old but still kinda funny and true + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A&feature=related seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts I don't really mind part of my medical insurance premium going to the profits of a company. Better than the same percentage going to the debt we don't have the money for. If our government did completely run healthcare, whos to say they won't do the same thing they did with Social Security? Pay off current debts with premiums, and print more money to pay claims. At least insurance companies are obligated to someone besides their own inflated egos. What it boils down to is class warfare and jealousy. That video tells me that the narrator is jealous that the demonized "investor" gets rewarded for his or her prudence and thrift. If a business is run poorly, they go bankrupt. If the government is run poorly, then they tax the hell out of all of us. Is this view so radical?? Edit: Also, entitlements are what is ruining America. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My fellow Americans owe me NOTHING. If I choose not to work hard, then I might not have health insurance. Entirely my fault then. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are sure to have Paul's vote. The problem is when there are no more Peters left (no pun intended). guess what there are always people who would like to work hard and everything but then they get hit by cancer ... so, they deserve to die (or get poor) because of what? bad luck? Freedom is not an excuse for selfish behavior ... social liabilities of course hinder your personal welfare but increases the welfare of the society as a whole (which is worth more) ... is this communistic? Well then i'm a communist (and EVERYONE in europe is ... cuz we all have those systems and they work without printing money which is btw not a problem of your social dept but of your fed) ... i like to use a different definition for this: Freedom in Responsibility
The difference is that in America, if you don't have the ability to pay, they will treat you (if they receive Federal funding). So yes, there are safety nets in place for people under bad circumstances. At least we don't have to die waiting for treatment like they do in Canada.
|
On October 16 2010 09:37 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2010 09:05 JoelB wrote:On October 16 2010 08:12 Scruffy wrote:On October 16 2010 06:26 JoelB wrote:just found that ... probably old but still kinda funny and true + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A&feature=related seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts I don't really mind part of my medical insurance premium going to the profits of a company. Better than the same percentage going to the debt we don't have the money for. If our government did completely run healthcare, whos to say they won't do the same thing they did with Social Security? Pay off current debts with premiums, and print more money to pay claims. At least insurance companies are obligated to someone besides their own inflated egos. What it boils down to is class warfare and jealousy. That video tells me that the narrator is jealous that the demonized "investor" gets rewarded for his or her prudence and thrift. If a business is run poorly, they go bankrupt. If the government is run poorly, then they tax the hell out of all of us. Is this view so radical?? Edit: Also, entitlements are what is ruining America. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My fellow Americans owe me NOTHING. If I choose not to work hard, then I might not have health insurance. Entirely my fault then. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are sure to have Paul's vote. The problem is when there are no more Peters left (no pun intended). guess what there are always people who would like to work hard and everything but then they get hit by cancer ... so, they deserve to die (or get poor) because of what? bad luck? Freedom is not an excuse for selfish behavior ... social liabilities of course hinder your personal welfare but increases the welfare of the society as a whole (which is worth more) ... is this communistic? Well then i'm a communist (and EVERYONE in europe is ... cuz we all have those systems and they work without printing money which is btw not a problem of your social dept but of your fed) ... i like to use a different definition for this: Freedom in Responsibility The difference is that in America, if you don't have the ability to pay, they will treat you (if they receive Federal funding). So yes, there are safety nets in place for people under bad circumstances. At least we don't have to die waiting for treatment like they do in Canada.
...IF they receive Federal funding. Note the big conditional. Also note how this is far more expensive because we end up treating late and advanced stages of injuries and illnesses for those who lack insurance but go get treatment because they have no choice. The alternative would offer insurance and treatment [which we already do since emergency rooms are required to treat all who come in anyways] except also offering the preventive care that should be given in the first place to prevent such higher costs (physically and economically).
|
On October 16 2010 09:37 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2010 09:05 JoelB wrote:On October 16 2010 08:12 Scruffy wrote:On October 16 2010 06:26 JoelB wrote:just found that ... probably old but still kinda funny and true + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A&feature=related seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts I don't really mind part of my medical insurance premium going to the profits of a company. Better than the same percentage going to the debt we don't have the money for. If our government did completely run healthcare, whos to say they won't do the same thing they did with Social Security? Pay off current debts with premiums, and print more money to pay claims. At least insurance companies are obligated to someone besides their own inflated egos. What it boils down to is class warfare and jealousy. That video tells me that the narrator is jealous that the demonized "investor" gets rewarded for his or her prudence and thrift. If a business is run poorly, they go bankrupt. If the government is run poorly, then they tax the hell out of all of us. Is this view so radical?? Edit: Also, entitlements are what is ruining America. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My fellow Americans owe me NOTHING. If I choose not to work hard, then I might not have health insurance. Entirely my fault then. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are sure to have Paul's vote. The problem is when there are no more Peters left (no pun intended). guess what there are always people who would like to work hard and everything but then they get hit by cancer ... so, they deserve to die (or get poor) because of what? bad luck? Freedom is not an excuse for selfish behavior ... social liabilities of course hinder your personal welfare but increases the welfare of the society as a whole (which is worth more) ... is this communistic? Well then i'm a communist (and EVERYONE in europe is ... cuz we all have those systems and they work without printing money which is btw not a problem of your social dept but of your fed) ... i like to use a different definition for this: Freedom in Responsibility The difference is that in America, if you don't have the ability to pay, they will treat you (if they receive Federal funding). So yes, there are safety nets in place for people under bad circumstances. At least we don't have to die waiting for treatment like they do in Canada.
So, if you are poor and unable to pay your treatment they will give it to you for nothing? Strange then why is getting sick still a poverty risk in the US? Or isn't it? Probably because when you are not poor but quiet short on money you have to pay all your money till the dept is covered so you are poor afterwards? This is no offense iam just trying to understand how this works
just in comparison ... our system works (simplified ... germans love making laws for everything) like this: we have two health care systems ... the official government system ... you have to pay for it depending on your income (with a social balance for low income people) and it is payed 50% by the worker and 50% by the employer (basically) ... or you can join a privat health care (basically like your system ... personalized fees, not everyone is excepted (depending on your income and health) but perfect treatment ... many people call this "two class medicine") ... they tried to fix and change the system every know and then since its quiet expensive because it is not accounting demographic change (more older people, people getting older, medicin gets better but also more expensive etc.) but still its somehow working ^^ ... the official health care is not paying for everything though ... atleast not for stuff they call "luxury"
|
One of the most hurtful things to this nation is the childish, self-defeating, absolutely retarded, 2 party BS system propped up by the lobbying corporatists. Of course Obama has hardly delivered anything remotely close to what he promised or the ideal of what he promised, no president or politician hardly ever does or hardly ever will. The 2 major parties have a monopoly on offices and 99% of the time they spend fighting each other, slandering each other, trying and succeeding to dupe the masses with pretty pictures and lies, slipping crap into legislation from bribes or self-interest or whatever, killing other legislation just to hurt the other side, the list of corruption, inefficiencies, and whatnot goes on forever.
Its a two way street, it takes two to tango, etc. This system was not meant to work with this global population in this day and age, or at the least it has obviously been degraded and corrupted to hell. Consumption is through the roof, spending what we dont have, billions and billions thrown around for RIDICULOUS crap with assurances that budgets will be cut!
One president alone could hardly make a dent in the mess we're in. People talking about how our situation is all Obamas fault, if only Obama did this and did that we would be in Utopia, BULLSHIT. Its the whole systems fault as well as the american peoples.
|
On October 16 2010 07:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2010 07:16 MadVillain wrote:
xDaunt says that Jimmy Carter is the worst president of all time.
I say George Bush was the worst president of all time.
Guess what? They're both equally valid statements. Because in politics nothing is based off logic or off of evidence, its based on people's opinions and self interest, and what they're parents told them. Honestly xDaunt how can you really say that the next presidential candidate is is going to be better? If he is republican all the republican's are going to say "This is who we needed the whole, time" If he is democratic all the republicans will say "This guys is a retard I'm not going to agree with anything he says." And vice versa. It's really simple.
Actually, I said that Jimmy Carter was "one of the worst presidents" -- not THE worst. I don't really know who deserves that title. In full disclosure, I'm not a fan of Bush either.
In response to the quote that you quoted....actually, most historians agree on the idea that Warren G. Harding was the worst president. George Bush was bad.....but at least he wasn't one of the catalysts for the Great Depression.
Jimmy Carter was pretty bad too though. 
|
Buchanan and Pierce are usually right down there with Harding in rankings done by historians.
|
On October 16 2010 12:43 Mindcrime wrote:
Buchanan and Pierce are usually right down there with Harding in rankings done by historians.
Oooooh. Forgot about those guys. Guess they just got washed outta my brain because in all honesty, they really didn't do much. >.>
|
On October 16 2010 13:27 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2010 12:43 Mindcrime wrote:
Buchanan and Pierce are usually right down there with Harding in rankings done by historians. Oooooh. Forgot about those guys. Guess they just got washed outta my brain because in all honesty, they really didn't do much. >.>
Pierce should be remembered for the Kansas-Nebraska act, which permitted the spread of slavery and further divided the nation.
In Buchanan's case, doing nothing is a pretty big thing when half of the country secedes while you are president. :/
|
On October 16 2010 13:38 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2010 13:27 Zergneedsfood wrote:On October 16 2010 12:43 Mindcrime wrote:
Buchanan and Pierce are usually right down there with Harding in rankings done by historians. Oooooh. Forgot about those guys. Guess they just got washed outta my brain because in all honesty, they really didn't do much. >.> Pierce should be remembered for the Kansas-Nebraska act, which permitted the spread of slavery and further divided the nation. In Buchanan's case, doing nothing is a pretty big thing when half of the country secedes while you are president. :/
In Pierce's case, I concede. Totally forgot that was under his presidency.
For Buchanan. I'm going to assume most people forget if only because Abe Lincoln came and cleaned up his mess for him. >.>
|
Haha Poor Dubya and Jimmy. In an endless struggle for taking the title of worst modern president.
|
On October 16 2010 08:56 Yurebis wrote:
Did that video just say that government is efficient?
sorry but.. lolololol efficient at what? How do you measure that? There's no gain or loss in the state, so there can't be a measure of success either. At most there's popularity contests and polls, which are reduced to hunches by the part of representatives and bureaucrats on what must be done. Every other measure is taken from the market, information which is formed voluntarily.
Speaking of polls, it is amazing that congress and the executive can go about their business as usual w\ ratings of <40%, <20%, etc. Customer satisfaction not guaranteed for sure.
They always have low numbers what is your point?
|
On October 16 2010 16:02 njnick wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2010 08:56 Yurebis wrote:
Did that video just say that government is efficient?
sorry but.. lolololol efficient at what? How do you measure that? There's no gain or loss in the state, so there can't be a measure of success either. At most there's popularity contests and polls, which are reduced to hunches by the part of representatives and bureaucrats on what must be done. Every other measure is taken from the market, information which is formed voluntarily.
Speaking of polls, it is amazing that congress and the executive can go about their business as usual w\ ratings of <40%, <20%, etc. Customer satisfaction not guaranteed for sure. They always have low numbers what is your point?
My point is that if the government was a voluntary, unprivileged business in the services it provides, it would go bankrupt all across the board with such ratings.
The video author's chosen measure of efficiency doesn't relate anything to how satisfied the consumer is, nor is it even an objective measure of the quality/cost of the service itself. It's a useless ratio, perhaps appealing to the fixed pie fallacy a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
