I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: Obama's Hope Fades
An article on Obama from a Canadian Newspaper........... Obama's hope fades. Middle America won't buy his hype and leftist ideology By SALIM MANSUR
Barack Hussein Obama acclaimed at the Democratic convention in Denver as the party's nominee for the presidency of the United States is a historic milestone for the great republic.
There is little doubt that the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. for the day when Americans "will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character" arrived a while ago. A non-white American likely would have been elected president in 1996 if Colin Powell had not declined to seek the Republican nomination.
Yet the question hanging over the Democrats leaving Denver is this: Did the party wisely choose its nominee for the November election?
The spectacle in Denver has not altered the fact that Obama is an empty suit. He barely managed to come ahead of Hillary Clinton in the delegate count while losing primaries in key big states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.
Obama, running on the message of "hope" and "change" is the most liberal left wing politician that Democrats have nominated as their candidate. The hollowness of the message was illustrated by Obama choosing as his running mate Joe Biden - the third most liberal senator from Delaware - first elected in 1972 when Richard Nixon was in the White House.
It is the lightness of Obama's resume that the mainstream media cannot give weight to despite its hype. Nor can Bill Clinton's deft praise override how Hillary's words -- "I know Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002" -- succinctly gave measure of her opponent in the primary season.
LEARN MORE: Platitudes can bring Middle America to pay attention to a seeker of the highest elected office, but once that attention is gained there is then earnest desire to learn more. The facts Middle America must consider about the two men vying for its votes is Obama's record of barely 143 days in Congress with no military service, and McCain's record of 26 years in Congress with 22 years of military service.
Though Obama has in his corner the formidable phalanx of the mainstream media, the institutional forces of political correctness and liberal intellectuals, Middle America has not been sold on hype and liberal left wing ideology. It has barely begun paying attention to stories about Obama that his mainstream media friends have been working overtime to bury.
The growth in alternative media certainly will make Middle America learn more before November's vote about Obama's friends and long time associates.
Here is a collection of unsavoury characters such as America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the bigoted priest Father Michael Pfleger, the convicted felon Tony Rezko, and the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist-turned-university-professor Bill Ayers.
Middle America, patriotic and religious, will want to know how Obama reconciles words he cites from Matthew (25:40) - "the least of these my brethren" -- with his vote as state senator opposing the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that the U.S. Senate passed with support of ardent pro-choice senators.
Middle America remains skeptical and this shows in the latest polls with Obama and McCain statistically tied, or Obama slipping behind in a year when any Democratic candidate should be a prohibitive favourite to win in November. link
Joined: Sep 14, 2004 Posts: 6535 Location: Rural Virginia
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
I feel that Obama was a poor choice because he is probably unelectable. That said, there is much about him that I like. He is highly intelligent, decent, interesting, and progressive, and that's quite a change from what we've had for longer than I dare consider.
The Democrats did not need such a risky pick. They should have gone with a more mainstream type who could still have advanced their basic causes. (And by "mainstream," yes, I also mean white, alas.) They could have won the White House easily this year, but as usual they're determined to shoot themselves in the foot.
I'm not emotionally invested in who wins the presidency anymore. The only thing that will get me to the polls this year is the recognition that with Obama I have at least a chance for some sort of affordable health insurance. With McCain I continue to get what I've been getting all along---nothing. _________________ "Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog
"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---Me and my brother
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
Sure thing... After all, Dukakis did so well. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:14 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
Heineken wrote:
I'm not emotionally invested in who wins the presidency anymore. The only thing that will get me to the polls this year is the recognition that with Obama I have at least a chance for some sort of affordable health insurance. With McCain I continue to get what I've been getting all along---nothing.
You're getting precisely what you deserve. WE don't owe YOU health insurance.
(Disclaimer - what follows will sound mean, but it isn't intended to hurt. You just wished for socialized medicine, and you're the perfect illustration of what's wrong with this. Yes, it's personal, but everyone reading this knows your situation, and you volunteered... BTW, it IS illustrative of the massive contempt with which I and millions of others regard socialism and socialists. This should give you pause, since we're better armed )
With that caveat, here goes: Apparently you've managed to live more than five decades without ever looking around the world at what actually occurs when Marxists take something over. You could start by reading the wikipedia article on Cuba, particularly the part about how under socialized medicine the best doctors only treat foreigners. It's a revenue source called "health tourism", and since commies don't have a real economy of their own... Of course, the really gifted docs also treat the ruling elite. The average (and below) docs treat the peasants. Wake up, sport - we're the peasants to Obama.
If the inequality isn't enough to give you pause, look at the limited availability of lifesaving technologies and the long delays in other systems that are considered "successes". What people do during those long delays has names like "suffering" and "dying"...
Perhaps you could do a little further research and then explain for everyone how America's demographics would impact your socialist yearnings. You're the one calling for this, so you should understand the issue. It's just about a mathematical certainty that our situation would make socialized medicine here one of the worst systems ever. Be careful what you ask for, and all that!
Should you get your wish, the best you can hope for is that you'll be FORCED to buy a policy and then PERHAPS be subsidized IF you meet the criteria for a subsidy. That's Obama's plan. The latest thinking is that qualification for the subsidies will be modeled after programs like food stamps and Medicaid, with means testing. Health care is a BIG giveaway, so expect the testing to be quite strict and to look at assets as well as income. This isn't free cars on Oprah, so get ready to sell your land! (If you put your name on your parents house - particularly as joint tenants - prepare to move out of there as well.)
If you think it'll be affordable, well crap, Heineken - - just look at the cost overruns in every government program EVER. WAKE UP!!! Affordable? From the government? Hell - the way government purchasing works they couldn't buy lunch for two at McDonald's for under three hundred dollars!
Speaking of which, there's actually no free lunch. None at all. Since you don't work you may feel that you've won something if medicine is socialized, but giving our health care system over to government thugs is the stupidest selfish thing you could do. These are the folks who brought you fake debt-based money and the bankrupt ponzi scheme called social security. These are the folks who brought you Vietnam and Iraq. Inflation and deficits. These are the folks who pretend to regulate markets while happily collecting taxes on rampant fraud. They brought you the real estate bubble. As they gleefully taxed the capital gains and the rest of the exuberant economy, they knew from the start that when it all collapsed, you would pay for the bailout, too - through inflation and interest on massive new debt. Look at how they do with medicare and more importantly - veterans health benefits. They're just pretending to dispense health care. Is that what you want? You think it's gonna be cheap??? You think THEY care about YOUR health??? (Look at the FDA if you're confused about this...)
Calling for socialism isn't noble, and it isn't wise. It's immature. You just don't want to pay for your own health insurance. You want to go play on your land instead. You figure you can force others to pay for something you need but won't pay for yourself. Go ahead. Vote for Obama. Get ready to be FORCED to buy a policy. You're gonna be selling your land if you get your wish - I promise. (You think Obama cares if you lose your land?? LOL. He's a socialist, you sucker. That's the price of your free lunch.)
Don't like the sound of this? Thinking you may not want to buy a policy after all? Just try opting out - I dare you! Hillary used the word "prison" eighty times in her "caring" socialist health plan. You think Obama'll be any different? You can't see that they're clones? If your little nightmare should come to pass I hope it'll be means tested so people like you won't get a cent at anyone else's expense. And guess what - it WILL be, 'cause the government's BROKE.
Save the gas, Heineken - don't vote. Stay home that day. You're gonna lose the land anyway, so just sell it and buy your own damn policy. Be an adult and pay your own way. Stop trying to inflict the cost of your CHOICES on the rest of us. _________________ Oil - it's what's for dinner.
Joined: Jul 17, 2004 Posts: 490 Location: Amerika (most of the time)
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:42 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
Fireplaceguy, That was a derivative, mean-spirited, ignorant post. Why are Republicans so nasty? That is why I support Obama because Republicans are just plain nasty and mean-spirited. Every time somebody proposes something that is outside of their worldview, Republicans are quick to call that person a "Marxist" or a "Socialist". _________________ Simon's Law: Everything put together falls apart sooner or later.
I don't think of all the misery, but of all the beauty that still remains.--Anne Frank
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:12 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
Fireplace guy is under the impression that "national healthcare" is a "liberal" idea. Since all liberals are socialists and marxists, any support for nationalized healthcare is outside the scope of a rational argument. In his mind, he thinks it's about taking something from him personally (that he earned) and giving it away to someone who "doesn't deserve it."
You may as well be trying to explain the benefits of family planning to people who support "right to life." You're looking at them as another party in a conversation, and they're looking at you as a "baby killer."
He may also be under the false impression that his "leaders" actually give a damn about what he thinks beyond making sure he's polarized enough to cast a vote along a party line.
Cui bono?
big_rc wrote:
Fireplaceguy, That was a derivative, mean-spirited, ignorant post. Why are Republicans so nasty? That is why I support Obama because Republicans are just plain nasty and mean-spirited. Every time somebody proposes something that is outside of their worldview, Republicans are quick to call that person a "Marxist" or a "Socialist".
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
fireplaceguy wrote:
Heineken wrote:
I'm not emotionally invested in who wins the presidency anymore. The only thing that will get me to the polls this year is the recognition that with Obama I have at least a chance for some sort of affordable health insurance. With McCain I continue to get what I've been getting all along---nothing.
You're getting precisely what you deserve. WE don't owe YOU health insurance.
(Disclaimer - what follows will sound mean, but it isn't intended to hurt. You just wished for socialized medicine, and you're the perfect illustration of what's wrong with this. Yes, it's personal, but everyone reading this knows your situation, and you volunteered... BTW, it IS illustrative of the massive contempt with which I and millions of others regard socialism and socialists. This should give you pause, since we're better armed )
{Text deleted-Excessive quoting.-FL} Save the gas, Heineken - don't vote. Stay home that day. You're gonna lose the land anyway, so just sell it and buy your own damn policy. Be an adult and pay your own way. Stop trying to inflict the cost of your CHOICES on the rest of us.
There are many forms of health system beyond the US and Cuba, You should inform yourself before launching into a cold war diatribe.
If you believe that individuals should not rely on a tax base to support their health, then do you believe the tax base should support education or defence? The nature of goverment is to pool funds to provide services that individuals cannot provide themselves (like real armies) and to regulate in the pursuit of fairness (difficult).
If you truly believe in the open market and its fairness then i think the US shouldput out a 5 yr tender for national defence\ and let the best one win. Or better, take out a massive insurance policy against invasion. If the US is invaded, we all win and move somewhere else. Whenever insurance companies get involved in anything, the price just goes up. witness auto repairs or anything else.
The real problem the US has is that it has an underclass that can't/ won't participate as tax payers because it's conventient for the powerful to ignore border security and employ illegals. Good profits for obvious reasons but the nett loss for the country is exported cash, no taxes, freeloading on the system wherever possible BUT cheaper prices for those with jobs i suppose.
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
Quote:
With that caveat, here goes: Apparently you've managed to live more than five decades without ever looking around the world at what actually occurs when Marxists take something over. You could start by reading the wikipedia article on Cuba, particularly the part about how under socialized medicine the best doctors only treat foreigners.
Many countrys have national health care systems. We in the UK have a national health care system. Most (all?) of Europe have a national health care system.
It is not as simple as socialism or capitalism. The issue regarding health care is one of suitability. Is it correct to have the private sector providing health care with the profit motive as its driving force? Some would say yes, as it would make the system more effcient and cut down waste. The other side of the argument is there is a mis-allignment of interest where the profit motive is incompative with the hippocratic oath and very basic morality of medicine.
The US, however, has some of the most expensive heathcare in the world. All you are doing is transfering the cost of health care from your tax bill to your insurance cover, which may or may not even cover you for certain types of illness. This is just not acceptable to most people and the horror stories are pretty common.
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
big_rc wrote:
Fireplaceguy, That was a derivative, mean-spirited, ignorant post.
I note you don't dispute the substance. Fact is, from his many posts here, we all know that Heinie has the means to pay for health insurance. We also know he'd much rather stock up on gold and buy land, and that's what he does. This choice is fine with me, right up until he wants me to subsidize it. There are a lot of folks out there who have the ability to pay for things themselves, but just don't want to. They're frequently found on the left agitating for social programs to pay for what they won't since they don't understand (or don't care) that the true price of these programs is our liberty. Like all such people (that includes you, rc) Heineken thinks he can have his cake and eat mine too.
As long as we're generalizing here, why is it that whenever lefties don't like something an opponent says they drag out terms like "mean-spirited"? Has no-one on the left studied logic? Or English? Here's mean-spirited for you: someone who tries to take MY money by force to buy something HE wants. See? Socialists are mean-spirited. (And thieves...)
And what of your use of "ignorant"? Do you view yourself as so lofty that any dissenting view deserves that description? Or is that the standard response when you have nothing with which to debate? (I'll come back to ignorance in a bit...)
big-rc wrote:
Why are Republicans so nasty? That is why I support Obama because Republicans are just plain nasty and mean-spirited.
That's some pretty deep thinking there, sport. Original, too And you're right - Barry Hussein's such a prince. Just ask Alice Palmer.
(BTW, I'm not a Republican. So a question of my own: Why is it that every time some liberal moron (you're obviously liberal, and you said you're voting for Obama!) sees a view different than their own, they think it's a Republican view? That's ignorant - or perhaps just simpleminded. You think Independents, Libertarians and Constitutionalists (for starters) don't read history? Or Hayek? Or Machiavelli, Marx or Orwell?
big-rc wrote:
Every time somebody proposes something that is outside of their worldview, Republicans are quick to call that person a "Marxist" or a "Socialist".
Wrong again. Often they just call them assholes. And for the record, Republicans are usually too shy to call a Marxist a Marxist or a socialist a socialist. That's because they have too much in common.
However, when someone calls for socialized medicine I will always call that socialist, because that's what it is. And your guy Obama is a Marxist (which is a totalitarian socialist). Just trace his political roots, which, as with Hillary Clinton, go directly back to Saul Alinsky. (I'm sure that's why he's such a nice guy, just as she's such a sweet woman...) _________________ Oil - it's what's for dinner.
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:48 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
Society's rule of thumb: when times are good, individualism rules the roost (every man for himself, 'greed is good' etc). When society is under pressure (war/economic depression) 'leftie' cooperation suddenly becomes the order of the day (e.g. Roosevelt's 'New Deal' during the 1930s).
If we're all agreed that the worst times, ever, are about to wash over us, then it's probably not a bad time to be canvassing consensual, cooperative political views. All sophisticated, civilised and progressive societies implement minimum safety-net benefits to prevent people hitting absolute rock-bottom during the hard times; where it becomes a travesty is when it engenders the so-called 'benefit culture' (for example, my wife is a social worker assisting single-parent families; one client - recently taking a break from churning out kids - complained that her benefits had recently been reduced by £600 per month (that's $1,091). She also runs a brand new (state-provided) car, and watches a tv with a giant plasma screen.
What we need is for state support to be provided with some sort of logical rationale. For example, here in the UK, child benefit is universal. Which means that even if you're Richard Branson, or Tesco chief Terry Leahy, if you have kids you get the state benefit. Means-testing may have garnered a poor reputation via its application in the past, but it wouldn't be a bad idea in this respect.
Back to Obama . . . this is the US, right? How 'left-wing' can you imagine any US administration being, given their supine support for big-business and the military-industrial complex? The Democrats are likely to be about as pro-socialist as Blair's 'New Labour' project over here!
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
mkwin wrote:
Quote:
With that caveat, here goes: Apparently you've managed to live more than five decades without ever looking around the world at what actually occurs when Marxists take something over. You could start by reading the wikipedia article on Cuba, particularly the part about how under socialized medicine the best doctors only treat foreigners.
Many countrys have national health care systems. We in the UK have a national health care system. Most (all?) of Europe have a national health care system.
You had to cut out part of what I said to even get this in. Amazing.
mkwin wrote:
It is not as simple as socialism or capitalism. The issue regarding health care is one of suitability. Is it correct to have the private sector providing health care with the profit motive as its driving force? Some would say yes, as it would make the system more effcient and cut down waste. The other side of the argument is there is a mis-allignment of interest where the profit motive is incompative with the hippocratic oath and very basic morality of medicine.
This is at best a distortion of the debate. The question is "Do we want to be able to make our own healthcare choices, including doctors, hospitals and treatments (including alternatives) or do we want to give that freedom up to the government in exchange for a promise that they'll respect us in the morning?" Giving bureaucrats jurisdiction over my body is about as personal as things get, and I recall throwing you folks out of here because we wanted to do things a bit differently. Something about taxation without representation, which is the very concern we have with socialized medicine. We know they can take our money. They're good at that. It's what we get in return that's still in question.
mkwin wrote:
The US, however, has some of the most expensive heathcare in the world.
True. And in many ways the best, too. If you're badly hurt, there's no place in the world equal to an American level 1 trauma center. And much of our high expense goes to technology, which is far more accessible here than in most other countries. (I WOULD like to see other countries pay more for our technology. That would help with the bills here for sure.) I'd also like to see the pharmaceutical companies held back a bit, but that's actually a matter of reducing government (FDA) power here. More of this is what we fear.
mkwin wrote:
All you are doing is transfering the cost of health care from your tax bill to your insurance cover, which may or may not even cover you for certain types of illness. This is just not acceptable to most people and the horror stories are pretty common.
The horror stories are common from the UK as well. Pensioners painfully waiting months for elective surgery is acceptable to you? Are you aware that Canadians with the means often come here to the US for surgery? And even though they'd have better doctors, I note that Cubans don't come here for care because they'd be shot by their government. We could go on and on with anecdotes, but that's just ignoring the real issue: Will America go the way of so many other countries and end up with the government controlling everything? That's the debate. _________________ Oil - it's what's for dinner.
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
untothislast wrote:
Society's rule of thumb: when times are good, individualism rules the roost (every man for himself, 'greed is good' etc). When society is under pressure (war/economic depression) 'leftie' cooperation suddenly becomes the order of the day (e.g. Roosevelt's 'New Deal' during the 1930s).
This is not any society's rule of thumb. This is Hegel's rule of thumb, and Marx rides on his coattails. You need to read up a bit...
untothislast wrote:
If we're all agreed that the worst times, ever, are about to wash over us, then it's probably not a bad time to be canvassing consensual, cooperative political views. All sophisticated, civilised and progressive societies implement minimum safety-net benefits to prevent people hitting absolute rock-bottom during the hard times
A truly sophisticated and civilised society wouldn't allow it's government and economy to be under the spell of central bankers and fiat money, which is what causes the hard times.
untothislast wrote:
...Back to Obama . . . this is the US, right? How 'left-wing' can you imagine any US administration being, given their supine support for big-business and the military-industrial complex? The Democrats are likely to be about as pro-socialist as Blair's 'New Labour' project over here!
See Hegel again. When it comes to our liberty, there's no doubt that Dems and Reps do nearly equal damage. But the left is worse, purely because that's where the train tracks ultimately run out for any society. We've been moving in that direction for decades in the best Fabian tradition. People like Obama accelerate that decline by changing the conversation to a new extreme. At some point we'll bring a Repub back for a while to calm things down. Every cycle moves the center steadily to the left, though, and the right moves leftward as well. This is why liberty is so rare, and why we're losing ours.
Repubs and Dems are nearly identical today. You need to understand Hegel to know why. _________________ Oil - it's what's for dinner.
Joined: May 26, 2008 Posts: 53 Location: north texas
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
fireplaceguy +1
I work in healthcare now and have for nearly 20 yrs. I am sick to death of medicaid and indigent people showing up at the ER expecting the best our tax money can buy. Should we go to some sort of socialized government funded healthcare I can't see how it will get any better.
People that are willling to pay for their own insurance and feel obligated to pay thier premiums and copay are rarely indignant when the cable tv in thier room is a bit fuzzy.
What makes anyone think that I should work my but off to pay for them to have a $100,000.00 surgery and happily skip off knowing they don't have to pay a dime. Should we go to a socialized system is the government going to continue paying me my current wage? I doubt it. How about Drs.? You think anyone is going to want to go through the torture of med school if they are only making what the government will pay them? What's the incentive?
I am certainly not picking on anyone, I don't know anyone here and to me thier choices are their own. While I see that the current system is ripe with faults, most of the abuse I encounter is in the current state and federally funded programs.
Joined: Oct 22, 2005 Posts: 709 Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:28 am Post subject: Re: Obama's Hope Fades
fireplaceguy wrote:
untothislast wrote:
Society's rule of thumb: when times are good, individualism rules the roost (every man for himself, 'greed is good' etc). When society is under pressure (war/economic depression) 'leftie' cooperation suddenly becomes the order of the day (e.g. Roosevelt's 'New Deal' during the 1930s).
This is not any society's rule of thumb. This is Hegel's rule of thumb, and Marx rides on his coattails. You need to read up a bit...
fireplaceguy . . . first piece of advice: try not to patronise. You don't know me, my background, or my educational history - nor the depth and scope of my wider reading. Second piece of advice: as informative and instructional as the books of Kant, Hegel, Ruskin, Marx, Wittgenstein, John Maynard Keynes, Bertrand Russell or Milton Friedman, et al, may be - they can't, and don't, account for the lessons learned via the practical experiences of people living in times which followed their own eras. Hegel died in 1831, Marx in 1883. I can either clearly recall, or have directly lived through, periods in history they themselves knew nothing about; so let's just say my own life experience tells me that this is indeed the rule of thumb for how western society operates.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16Next
Page 1 of 16
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
)
