| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, easy, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Obama Myth | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 11 2009, 01:36 AM (340 Views) | |
| Post #1 Dec 11 2009, 01:36 AM | Bonzolee |
|
"He's more left than he let on," says many on the right. "He's a more radical Democrat than he appeared," claims former Vice President Dick Cheney. "I don't know what the hell he's doing... but it's sure as fuck not what I elected him to do," said a Liberal friend of mine. So just what in the hell is going on? I can tell you, as someone who has more Liberal views on current issues, Obama is acting exactly as I predicted: as a moderate, someone from the center. A radical leftist? Are you fucking kidding me? People who are more center left feel Obama's not leftist enough. Hell, I agree. It's just more of the same god awful centrist shit (better than McCain/Palin, of course!), and it looks like the real Liberals in Obama's WH have already lost the ideological battle. Even quicker than Clinton! (I predicted that, btw.) A radical Obama would have gone for a single payer healthcare plan from the start; president Obama went for a public option plan, and has gone on record as saying he's willing to concede that for a bill to reach his desk. Wtf? A radical Obama wouldn't have escalated the war in Afghanistan; a radical Obama would have done some shit for gay rights; a radical Obama would have stuck by Van Jones rather than throw him under the bus; a radical Obama wouldn't have increased military spending; a radical Obama would have actually tightened up market regulations and wouldn't have sucked the collective dicks of Wall Street with that bailout. Is Dick Cheney on something? You'd have to be completely ignorant of things and without any historical perspective of even the last 25 years to claim that he's a radical. He's just perpetuating the same bullshit, for the most part. He hasn't drawn any lines in the sand and has, for the most part, been cooperative to a fault. ... And why the hell is Dick Cheney running his mouth all of a sudden? Dude was pretty much silent when he was in power. He hid out like he was Tiger Woods! Chris Matthews always says, "And here comes Dick Cheney from underneath his bridge..." Spot on. Really, it's time for the Neo-Cons and the lot to face facts: they're the radical ones. Bush was far more radical than Clinton ever was. Bush went right along with the N-Cons' plans to attempt to "transform" the Middle East. And look at what he allowed to happen in the markets! This is some ridiculous shit. Of course, Obama has been accused of all sorts of brainwashing, indoctrination, and propaganda when the fact is, his public relations team haven't done much of anything. When it came time to give a war speech, Obama stuck with substance over poetry. Bush would always go with poetry. I disagree with Obama on Afghanistan (though, to be honest, he did run on it), but I thought his speech was OK. I just wish somebody would actually talk about the core issue here: is a military based strategy the way to go from here on out? I highly doubt it. And Obama, just like Bush, seems to think the Western idea of freedom is the ONLY idea of freedom, which is just incorrect. Dude almost sounded like a Neo-Con himself when he gave that war speech! And, quick question: if the worst case scenario is that Bin Laden returns to Afghanistan... uh, wouldn't that be a good thing? Then we could actually get him! |
 
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Dec 11 2009, 01:46 AM | Perry |
|
What happens after election only bears a slight resemblance to the promises made beforehand. So it has ever been. Voters have short memories. |
Con fused jus
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Dec 11 2009, 02:12 AM | Joe E. Holman |
| I heard that Obama has only a 50% approval rating now. Why are the leftist mad at him? Where do they feel he failed them? |
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Dec 11 2009, 02:26 AM | Bonzolee |
|
The leftists are getting pissed because he's not doing shit for them. The whole "Obama Agenda" is invisible. It's not really an issue of failure yet, as he hasn't even been in office for a year– it's more of a "he's going down the wrong path" thing. Obama's been too centrist for his own good at this point. That said, such a thing will most likely help him out with swing voters in 2012. If you figure that Liberals, even if they are extremely disappointed, will vote for him over the GOP's choice anyway... You get the picture. |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #5 Dec 18 2009, 02:09 AM | Bonzolee |
|
Hey, guess what? I'm now firmly against the healthcare bill. It's total bullshit. Kill it. I doubt they've got the spine to fix it, so just throw it in the garbage. What a bunch of fucking idiots. And, as I predicted months ago, the White House is scrambling like a young, single male at a bar during last call. They'll go for anything. I suggest Obama take a smoking break, because he is cracking under the pressure. And how dare any Democrats and Liberals suggest that I'm the one being unreasonable here. Yes– it will be embarrassing for the party if this bill goes down. A crushing defeat. But one thing that's not acceptable is the passing of a terrible bill, just so that the party can look good for a moment that will surely pass quickly. Ugh. UGH. Edited by Bonzolee, Dec 18 2009, 04:13 AM.
|
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #6 Dec 19 2009, 09:19 AM | Huxley |
|
Shame. You had the chance to do great things. You all threw the baby out with the bath water so its back to arguing with the insurance companies. While you pissed about concerning yourselves with non existent 'death panels' your chances of affordable health care for all just went down the plughole. Everyone (except Fox Noise) broadcasts the amount of Americans who die unecessarily every year, for the want of health care. People who need not have died but were ignored by insurance companies. You are too busy getting angry about 'socialist' health care. Since when was 'socialist' a naughty world? (unless you are Glenn beck of course) are you so paranoid that you really never got out of the Mcarthy era? You had a chance but the rich have elected to make things stay exactly the same. 'I'm all right Jack and pull up the ladder behind me'. You could have made history and finessed it as you went. Our NHS hasnt stayed the same and it didnt arrive kicking and screaming into this world in the same way it is now. It evolved - but when it was first mooted, the entire medical profession (and I do mean the ENTIRE Medical profession) was against it as they saw it would undermine their 'status' and ability to make money. Some people have to be coerced. But you seemed to fall for the crap that was kicked around about 'socialist' medicine. Sure we have had instances where ill people have been kept on trolleys in corridors. What they never tell you is that these people are waiting for a bed on a ward whilst a well patient gets discharged. Do we have enough wards then? Nope, never could have when it comes to how many aged people need in hospital care - but they do get accomodated. No one is turned away because of their age. No one is denied life saving drugs because of cost. It is a medical decision - if they dont think it will do any good; you just dont get the drug. As long as I was in the medical profession I never heard a doctor or senior Nurse 'means test' a patient. My own father in law is going into kidney failure. He is 74 and they are instituting a program of dialysis for him. He has little chance of a transplant due to his renal failure but he is not being abandoned. Can you really say your system is so perfect that it did not need reform? Can those of you who can afford it look a poor person in the eye when they dont get the treatment they need? You could have made history. Your governments first duty is to protect its people. Any move to take the incentive away from the insurance compainies - any move at all - should have been welcomed. change things as you will; improve them as you must but at the very least those Republicans (and now some Democrats) should wonder how they sleep at nights, while taking their dollars off sponsors who have the morals of alley cats. I love Americans; i really do love you guys but you really fucked up royally on this one. If you want to be the leaders of the world, you need to at least demonstrate that your people are cared for and given every opportunity for health as your constitution would suggest. |
|
  | |
|
|
|
| Post #7 Dec 19 2009, 09:59 PM | magicshoemonkey |
|
Everything you say, Huxley, is dead on. I'm starting to hate living here, honestly, though it's probably partly because I live in the South, where I literally get dirty looks if I say I voted for Obama, a move I'm not sure I regret, but know was not as much of a step in the right direction as I wanted it to be. If we had gotten a real health care system I might have felt better about all of that, but nope, Obama sold us out to the insurance companies and sat back and lied about how "great" it is. The problem is actually the government, though. If you look at the polls, the majority of Americans want at least a public health option, and I mean huge majorities, sometimes up around 80%. Americans aren't morons, really, for the most part; they see the good things that other countries have. The morons are mostly Republicans, who currently have about a 25% approval rating. Now, that's way too high considering how insidious and ignorant they are, but it's obviously a minority. But there are a lot of conservative and moderate Democrats that have sold out to corporations and are really just working to steal money from the poor and middle class to prop them up during the recession. It's getting ridiculous. I mean, some of that is slightly exaggerated, but not as much as I wish it were. Their financial "reforms" that recently started moving through congress are about 75% a joke, Obama called out the big bankers publicly like he was going to do something about their criminal activities, then, reportedly, was all friendly and accommodating behind closed doors. I said the other day, it's like we're living in a satire half the time: the people can't get what they want in a fuckin' democracy! I mean, the polls are equal to if not higher on banking regulations than they were on health care; it's just ridiculous. I understand being pragmatic when you don't have the votes for a full-on reform package, but they're going way too far with it. The progressives in congress lost EVERYTHING. We had to concede everything, including abortion rights, to pass the bill. It's sort of amusing, actually, because the Democrats are, as a result of all of this bullshit, rapidly losing support: their approval numbers are plummeting. Amusingly, last I saw, the Republican numbers haven't changed. So the midterm elections may be...interesting. But that developing comedy doesn't help us. We're all going to be forced to buy crappy, cheap health care that covers nothing or pay $1000 fines. Plus the banks and large corporations are going to continue to rape us. USA! USA! Edit: I just learned that Al Franken and another senator were able to get an amendment saying that 80-85% of premiums must go to medical care, or at least that was my understanding of it. That's a little better than nothing, but not much. Actually, I kind of like Franken, and think he might shape up to be a great senator. Oh, incidentally, I've had that "crappy, cheap health [insurance] that covers nothing" and it really does cover nothing. It's basically insurance to say you have insurance. I went to the doctor with it and every time got at least a $40 bill. Plus, at one point I had to have an ultrasound. They rubbed a wand over my balls. It took 3 minutes. The insurance paid nothing, it cost $1300. Edited by magicshoemonkey, Dec 20 2009, 01:40 AM.
|
 
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 Dec 19 2009, 10:18 PM | magicshoemonkey |
I'm a socialist, pretty much. I mean, I'm for a mixed economy, but one that falls more on the socialist side than the capitalist. I'm about as far left as Bernie Sanders claims to be. But I voted for Obama because, first, I figured anything was better than Palin, and because, second, I thought that he was a little more left of center than he actually is. I mean, he campaigned a bit more to the left than he actually is. I knew he was kind of a pansy, but I didn't know he was a coward. Anyway, I like the guy, I think he's charismatic and friendly and often witty, but I'm finding myself hating his political stances because they're often, at best, slightly left of Bush and, at worst, slightly right of Bush. Sometimes he covers up his right wing policies by acting like he's being progressive (a la Guantanamo, which, it was just reported, he plans to just move the prisoners and continue to hold without trial). At Bush had strong, stupid principles and he stuck to them, for the most part. Obama has weak, stupid principles that he pretends are really going to help, and are really "change," when they aren't. Dick Cheney is a bastard who wants attention. He's willing to say any ridiculous shit to get his face on TV so that people don't forget about him; it's how he keeps some degree of power. He's not stupid, he's just evil and self-centered. The people who call Obama "radical" and "socialist" are mostly morons who are following the GOP talking points that have been drilled into their heads. The ideological brainwashing there probably goes all the way up to the leaders of the party, to some degree. Only the real leaders of the GOP (corporate leaders, a few behind the scenes string pullers) know it's just a sham to cause problems for Obama. Of course, most Americans realize it too, but I mean within the group. Obama is basically a smarter, savvier, slightly less conservative Bush. Many of his advisers, even, are carry-overs from Bush. Don't get me wrong, he's better than Bush, but not by much at all. He is, slowly, ending Iraq. For now, at least. Edit: One of my favorite bloggers, Jason Rosenhouse, comments on the idea that Obama is to blame for all of these problems: http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2009/12/is_obama_to_blame.php I disagree with him. For one thing, we know Obama made deals with the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry, and what those deals entailed, to some degree. Also, he really didn't fight that hard for anything that he claimed to want (public option or any bastardization of it; even the medicare buy-in). He did nothing when Lieberman was such a dick, even going so far as to act like Lieberman was being ingenuous, when he's obviously not, and make deals with him, and not fight him or denounce him at all. I mean, sure, maybe it's politics to keep him satisfied so the bill can pass, but I think it's more than that. He's just too cowardly to take a strong stance. When people say "brilliant politician" they mean it: he's diplomatic to the point of ridiculousness. Not to mention, he jumped all over Howard Dean as if he's the evil one for opposing a bad bill. I could point out all the hypocrisy and poor decisions, but I'm too tired now. Edited by magicshoemonkey, Dec 20 2009, 01:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Dec 22 2009, 03:39 AM | Bonzolee |
|
Joe, you have anything you want to add? We're probably for the same thing, believe it or not: kill the bill. Take the bill, crumple it up, and trash it. That's what I'm saying. Start from scratch at a later date, when/if you have more men and women of character in Congress or the people finally find their voice. I know this bill will cover more people, but as I've always said, I'm not in it for the people. I, personally, couldn't give a fuck. I do think that in the modern world, especially a rich society like us, a government owes their citizens a strong healthcare system. I also believe this bill isn't it. It gets more people covered, but in the same broken down system we have. We need to control costs better, think long term for a change, and improve services and efficiency. So, we're basically handing over power and cash to the insurance companies. They're loving this. Congress backed down from them. Buncha pussies. They say we need to pass this because it's a start in the right direction. They say they'll face the insurance companies down at a later date. They'll add the regulations and all the important, tough stuff later. Yeah fuckin' right they will! Neither party has the will to win that battle. Neither party has the balls. And, the Democrats are going to lose seats next year. You think the Republicans are actually going to decide to tighten up regulations on insurance companies? You think they'll get tough with them? Hell no! And the Democrats won't either. Even if they do find the courage, I can't imagine the Democrats having this much control in Congress again for a long time. Bush's many fuck-ups gave them this power. So, all this is going to turn out to do is this: it will cover more people, but it will give the country's money away to insurance companies and will give them even more power in healthcare. The regulations won't ever come. It's going to be a perpetual cash giveaway, and the many problems that need to be fixed won't ever be addressed. That erases any short term good this bill may do for people currently without insurance. The insurance companies have proven they won't regulate themselves, and the government has proven they can't be counted on to take on the insurance companies at some vague "later date". It's garbage. Put it where it belongs. Edited by Bonzolee, Dec 23 2009, 03:28 AM.
|
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #10 Dec 22 2009, 04:28 AM | Bonzolee |
| Monkey, you ever read any Noam Chomsky? |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #11 Dec 22 2009, 04:27 PM | Bonzolee |
That call out was hilarious. Obama can feel free to go on TV and wag his finger at me if, first, he gets the government to give me a shit load of money. What he did with the banks was obscene. He's basically their pet chihuahua. And these imbeciles are going to make me lose my mind with these regulations! Of course the government has to step in! The problem is, halfway through his presidency, Bill Clinton decided (was persuaded) that the free market would respond faster to people's wants and needs than the government could, so he gave away power to the free market. This idea failed. Government can't solve all of our problems, but the free market can't either. Government needs to step in and regulate, because there is no self-correcting balance in the market like some would like to believe. Because there is no "free" market; there's only the market. Plus, such an idea hangs on Game Theory, and that it can be successfully applied to complex social situations. That's what's supposed to create the "balance". It's a scientific backing to the ideas presented by people like Friedrich Hayek or Ayn Rand. John Nash actually – and recently – said it doesn't work that way. He said Game Theory – his idea (well... he embraced its ideas and came up with his own solution) – oversimplified human beings and overemphasized rationality on the part of humans. Game Theory he said, "only works in terms of self-interest." He doesn't think it's applicable to more complex situations, and certainly not to society as a whole. In fact, a relatively new discipline, "behavioral economics", found that only two groups of people act in a rational, self-interested way in all experimental situations. The first group is the economists themselves. The second, is psychopaths. We need to correct some of the problems made by Clinton and Bush. We need to tighten regulations and change our understanding of the market. And neither the Dems nor the Republicans want to do a damn thing about it. They're both pretty much useless. One thing on those polls though: people's answers depend on the precise question being asked. The groups who administrate these polls tinker with the language to encourage a certain answer, and the results are pumped out as propaganda in disguise. I mean, probably not all of them, but most of them. I'm oversimplifying things so that I don't have to type several paragraphs, but that's the basic idea at work. Like, NBC actually used language that observers noticed encouraged a negative reaction to the public option, and Conservatives jumped on the results of this poll as proof that Americans are against the public option. The American people are not against a public option. A lot of it has to do with how you frame it. If you advertise it as a "choice", giving Americans a choice in healthcare, then the public largely supports it. It's an important trigger word. What these polls show is that Americans are split on healthcare; but that's not the case when you introduce trigger words. Framing matters. Edited by Bonzolee, Jan 8 2010, 04:38 AM.
|
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #12 Dec 24 2009, 05:10 AM | Bonzolee |
|
I don't want to start a new thread for this, but: What grade would you give Obama for his first year as president? And none of that shaky "C+" or "A-" bullshit, people– let's stick with solid, no nonsense answers. Personally, I'll give him a "D". He hasn't been a total failure – he's done some good things and kept us afloat – but he's made plenty of mistakes and hasn't done nearly as much as he could have. He's also getting sloppy: yesterday he was caught flat out lying about the public option. He had a rough year, Bush left him with a whole list of problems, and while he didn't swim his way out of it, he didn't drown. D sounds about right. |
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| Post #13 Dec 26 2009, 10:36 PM | magicshoemonkey |
I'm a bit conflicted by this bill the more I hear about it. It seems there are a few mild regulations in the bill, but nowhere near enough to make a difference. I know that Switzerland, The Netherlands, and, to some degree, Germany have private health insurance coverage (I believe Germany has what is akin to a public option, but it covers anyone who is uncovered by their employer for little or no cost to the patient). The reason it works in their countries at all (and it works better in some than in others) is because the regulations on the industry are very extensive. I know in Switzerland the companies are actually restricted from making a profit; they are essentially private charities (that may be true of the other countries as well). In other words, the only way a private system covers everyone ethically is by making it essentially a government run industry with private branches. That's not even close to what we're doing with this bill. I understand the need to get care to people who are suffering, but the government can't work that way. First, the bill isn't really going into effect for 5 years, anyway, and, second, with all the time it takes to get things done, prepare the system for the bill to take effect, etc. they could work to get extensive reform. The only thing that causes me to pause is the idea that this is the best we can do right now. But, again, with the time it takes to get things going anyway, we might as well just wait. But I can understand saying, if we wait we may not have the chance later. I think that's unlikely, but I understand the feeling.
Yeah, some. I've seen/heard more interviews than I've read of his books. I like him. I occasionally find his historical interpretation iffy, and I haven't checked up on his sources in what I have read (though that's partly because I knew he was telling the truth about a few of the historical claims he made in what I read/heard from my college courses/research), but I agree with him on foreign policy, for the most part. I also tend to agree with his view of media/propaganda. You are correct about polls, but there were some good scientific polls that supported the public option (including a number of polls by conservative groups that supported it, though I can't remember which ones off the top of my head). But what you say about framing is really the entire problem with political polling. Also, a lot of that is related to the American "propaganda" system that, to bring this together, Chomsky discusses. In reality, the choice issue is meaningless. Canadians and Brits have much better choices because they can choose doctors and medical providers with ease and don't have to worry about cost, plan coverage, etc. The people have been mislead into thinking that choosing the person who pays their bills actually matters when that's what matters least, and if we had a system where the bills were covered through a slight increase in taxes they would have more choices in the long run. And more control, since we, allegedly, have control over government. I actually heard an interview with Chomsky the other day where he was saying that he didn't believe we should make fun of the tea partiers since they are hard working Americans with real concerns who just don't have the knowledge to back their concerns up because of the failure of the American media and educations systems. I think I agree, though I also think he hasn't seen enough on the tea partiers because some of their concerns are pretty ridiculous. Then again, that's the problem with American education (with results like only 30% of Americans accepting something as obvious as evolution).
I think I would go a bit better: C. He's done a couple of good things. He signed a great bill to help people pay off student loans, which is going to save my life, and he's changed the face of America in the world at large, a huge plus if over-emphasized. There are a number of accomplishments that just don't get publicized, as well. As you said, a lot of the problems he has to deal with are problems brought about by Bush, so I think a C is fair for his first year. Edited by magicshoemonkey, Dec 26 2009, 10:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
| Post #14 Dec 27 2009, 04:23 AM | Bonzolee |
Here's what he said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWs6g3L3fkU My opinion is this: the tea parties are your routine somewhat large, highly stupid crowd. Alone, they don't pose much of a threat in any sense. The problem is that certain groups and individuals see opportunity in these crowds, and they manipulate this already frenzied crowd into doing what they want. It's classic mass psychology. In essence, what I can do is mold this group of people to my liking. I can have them identify positive feelings with the group, and I can pick and choose who I want them to associate their negative feelings with. Who I want them to attack. I can manipulate their subconscious and get them to project where I want them to. They're stupid, and I can make decisions for them, give them orders, and they'll believe they thought it up all on their own. I can take advantage of every tiny bit of their subconscious. Another thing you have to look at are the group leaders in the tea party movement. A crafty outsider, if he/she can convince the group leaders, they will convince the entire group. If they can make puppets out of the leaders they then control the group, and they can use these leaders for ends that remain hidden. The leaders themselves may not even be intelligent enough to even understand these ends. A lot of this is already playing out. Having said all that, I don't feel the crowd is yet large enough to become a problem. They simply don't hold enough power, and they aren't radical enough to turn violent in large numbers. Edited by Bonzolee, Dec 27 2009, 04:32 PM.
|
|
|
"Brain disorders, like madness, are themselves contagious. The frequency of madness among doctors who are specialists for the mad is notorious." – Gustave Le Bon "The fact that audiences would rather go to Wonderland than face Iraq speaks volumes." – Random Youtube Poster | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics, News, and other informative stuff · Next Topic » |
4:38 PM Jul 31
