|
Anyone see this today? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| diabloargentino |
| quote: | Originally posted by ramsau
I don't pay taxes, I don't work. Because the government won't let me.
What a piece of freeloading I turned out to be. |
where ya been bro?! i deleted fb a while but if you're still around we need to get to a party together :D |
|
|
| ramsau |
| quote: | Originally posted by diabloargentino
where ya been bro?! i deleted fb a while but if you're still around we need to get to a party together :D |
Ha! I was wondering what happened to you! My first thought was that you cleared "unnecessary people" from your fb lol.
Been doing great, actually. Skating, coaching, normal stuff. Haven't been out in clubs for ages, last time I was out was in Nature One festival in Europe.
Some drinks are definitely in order!
On a totally unrelated note, a lot of people seem to get rid of Facebook. You're like the 10th guy to delete their account in past couple of months. |
|
|
| StrobeLifeNYC |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sedna
As far as the military presence in other countries is concerned, it's REALLY not as cut and dry as "just pull all the troops out." Once we're in there we've taken the responsibility of finishing the job we started. The US can't simply uproot a dictator and then leave a polarized country full of religious hotheads to their own devices. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is doing the best he can with a war that he voted AGAINST in the first place (check his record, he was one of very few Senators that voted 'no' on the Iraq war). |
For the record, he wasn't a Senator for the Iraq War vote, he only said in speeches he would have been "against it" if he were. The vote he did partake in regarding Iraq was whether or not to continue funding it, for which he voted neither "yes" or "no" in, only that he was "present" (no stance; weaseling out of it imo).
Regardless, I understand what you're saying, and it's the rational way of seeing the situation; but it's what Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld were saying. And the uneducated masses out there have no idea about the numbers of troops still in the countries. Their perception is that he was the knight in shining armor that has taken them all out already.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sedna
Obamacare significantly reduced healthcare pressures on the middle class and the poor. Yes, real liberals like myself know that a single-payer system would be significantly better than what we have now. However, how is a single-payer system EVER going to happen in America? Is the US government just going to tell all the insurance companies "time to shut down, we have no use for you anymore!" |
He could have shown more backbone in at least TRYING to push the public OPTION. But he really didn't. He got his healthcare boys in Hartford an unlimited pool of new customers and wasn't really interested in the details of price regulation. When you delve further and further into the details, there's really not much to the bill. I'm super-liberal (which is why people are always confused when I'm railing on Obama).
| quote: | Originally posted by Sedna
Annnnd the Banksters. The bailout Obama provided to the banks is being payed back to the US Government with interest. Meaning it wasn't a bailout. It was a loan. So all the Republican banter about "NO MORE BAILOUTS!!!" is absolutely ridiculous. It'll be a little while before we can see the true effects of Dodd-Frank, but my prediction is that it will be a little underwhelming and we may need even more regulation... particularly in the "Too Big to Fail" category. |
I'm the first to agree here. Any Republican speaking out against bailouts didn't do so when Bush initiated it; bunch of hypocrites. The bailouts are a tough issue I don't really know the X's and O's of, so I can't say 100% whether or not the phase of bailouts Obama authorized were right or wrong. We'll be able to tell in time.
As for the Republicans, they're the bigger scumbags. If they were in power during this term, all banks would have been fully bailed out with extremely loose conditions: full government safety net for them and their boys. But of course, they say the "liberals are Socialists". Government swooping in to rescue a private entity... Uh... that's as close to Socialism as we can imagine seeing (but once again, I'm not the expert here, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). |
|
|
| StrobeLifeNYC |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sedna
Overall, I think if you look at his entire four years in office, and factor in the mess Bush left him and the 112th Congress that refuses to pass ANY legislature (they're seriously the worst thing to happen to this country since The Great Depression), Obama has done a fine job overall. |
This ineffective Congress was his tool to get re-elected, to get out of this term unscathed. He had two years of a Democrat majority in both House and Senate, did just about nothing with it. Sure enough, the GOP came in, and he was able to blame inaction on them, spearheading him into this election year where he's everywhere and anywhere hustling for votes.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sedna
TL;DR- Look at the facts, and Obama is a decent president. Speculate on subjective matters like the intentions of campaign finance, and the opinion could sway either way. |
At the end of the day, he's decent by default, simply because of how catastrophic Bush's 8 years were for this country. I mean, okay, that's good enough, but as a fervent Obama supporter in 2008, he's really let me down the past 4 years, in a big way. |
|
|
| Sedna |
I'm definitely on your side about the Public Option, I think that should have been pushed for.
Actually, I'm pretty much just on your side in general. I'm also a super-liberal. I'm a realist when it comes to certain things, though... and as a realist I recognize that Obama is much better for this country than Romney is. I mean, there's a lot on his record that people don't talk about... increased funding for Pell Grants (my Physics Degree is now costing about 1/3 of what it was going to cost me previously, and as a Physics Major I will be contributing plenty to society. That's a quality government investment if I do say so myself), repeal of DADT, partial healthcare reform, an end date to our little oil shopping-spree in Iraq... etc. There's plenty of stuff to toss on his "Nice List" and only a few things, by my count, to put on the naughty list.
Also, I definitely misspoke about the Iraq vote. I'm at school right now and was typing quickly without thinking enough, and I guess I'm a bit hazy on that subject. Now that I think about it, it was Hillary Clinton who DID vote FOR the war in Iraq, and that's where I drew some contrast between them in the 2008 election. I must have falsely attributed Obama to a "no" vote in the process, when in reality he just said that he opposed it.
Lastly, I just want to reiterate my statement about the 112th Congress. I think a lot of the negativity toward Obama arises from this premise; he doesn't have a HoR that will work with him on ANYTHING. Nothing at all. They don't care what the contents of the legislation are, they just want him out of office. If he had representatives he could work with, we might see more change. That's why I encourage everyone to go out and vote in November, if not for the President then for Congressional candidates that will help this country rise to its feet again. |
|
|
| ramsau |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sedna
he doesn't have a HoR that will work with him on ANYTHING. Nothing at all. |
DING DING DING DING!
...But it's all Obama's fault! I mean, it has to be.
First people wanted change and they elected Democratic president and when he didn't fix everything in few months, people elected Republican Congress. That's smart. |
|
|
| AY STAR |
| quote: | Originally posted by StrobeLifeNYC
I don't know, are you equating people with government jobs as dependent freeloaders? Their benefits and pay are kickass, but what's the problem with that?? We should all strive to be as comfortable financially as someone with a government job.
I work as an architect. If we had a union, I'd join one, but we don't. So I work 11 hours a day with no overtime or retirement package, and barely any lunch break to speak of. That's not a way to live, that's a way for companies to treat us like animals because they can. So, public workers have it better than us? Should we demonize them, or demonize the system we're stuck in that takes advantage of us, and try and work toward change?
Both my parents worked public jobs, and were allowed an awesome standard of living which I don't currently have or see for myself on the horizon in my field. Right now, for young workers in the new work force, it's the Wild Wild West out there. Anything goes, worker's rights have gone to . With mentalities of people like Romney and companies he's worked for, this will only get worse. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think Obama's making it any better. |
bravo man, i used to be in the private sector and i had a similar experience, especially with lunch break,downtalking to you,safety violations etc etc and like you said cause THEY CAN. so as soon as i got called for my current job i left in a heart beat and never looked back, best move i ever made. i wake up every morning feeling great and stress free
the way i see it is that no one had a problem with public jobs,unions etc in the past 5-15 years, heck not many people even wanted them, everyone wanted private sector jobs. most public jobs were looked down on.
now that the economy is in the ter they want to hate on us and what we have |
|
|
| StrobeLifeNYC |
| quote: | Originally posted by ramsau
DING DING DING DING!
...But it's all Obama's fault! I mean, it has to be.
First people wanted change and they elected Democratic president and when he didn't fix everything in few months, people elected Republican Congress. That's smart. |
I agree, but he really didn't propose much of anything in the first 2 years. It was as if he was waiting for a reason to blame his inaction on, and when the GOP came back into power in Congress, he had it. Some of the things he's been complaining about the past two years could have EASILY been passed in his first 2 years. That simple fact is so frustrating. And one can't help but come to the conclusion that it was all statistically schemed up for political maneuvering toward a 2012 re-election. And it seems to be working, considering how many people in here are holding Congress accountable but not Obama's first 2 years. |
|
|
| StrobeLifeNYC |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sedna
I'm definitely on your side about the Public Option, I think that should have been pushed for.
Actually, I'm pretty much just on your side in general. I'm also a super-liberal. I'm a realist when it comes to certain things, though... and as a realist I recognize that Obama is much better for this country than Romney is. I mean, there's a lot on his record that people don't talk about... increased funding for Pell Grants (my Physics Degree is now costing about 1/3 of what it was going to cost me previously, and as a Physics Major I will be contributing plenty to society. That's a quality government investment if I do say so myself), repeal of DADT, partial healthcare reform, an end date to our little oil shopping-spree in Iraq... etc. There's plenty of stuff to toss on his "Nice List" and only a few things, by my count, to put on the naughty list.
Also, I definitely misspoke about the Iraq vote. I'm at school right now and was typing quickly without thinking enough, and I guess I'm a bit hazy on that subject. Now that I think about it, it was Hillary Clinton who DID vote FOR the war in Iraq, and that's where I drew some contrast between them in the 2008 election. I must have falsely attributed Obama to a "no" vote in the process, when in reality he just said that he opposed it.
Lastly, I just want to reiterate my statement about the 112th Congress. I think a lot of the negativity toward Obama arises from this premise; he doesn't have a HoR that will work with him on ANYTHING. Nothing at all. They don't care what the contents of the legislation are, they just want him out of office. If he had representatives he could work with, we might see more change. That's why I encourage everyone to go out and vote in November, if not for the President then for Congressional candidates that will help this country rise to its feet again. |
On the whole, I think we can pretty much agree on a lot of the core of what we're both saying. And yes, in the end, I think we're better off with Obama than we are with Romney. And being limited to those two choices is extremely sad for our country. Something's gotta give.. |
|
|
| Sedna |
| quote: | Originally posted by StrobeLifeNYC
Something's gotta give.. |
That "something" is the Green Party. The Green Party needs more representation, or the Democratic Party needs to embrace liberality over their current center-left stand. The more the Democratic Party sits at the center, the further right the center sways with the addition of all of these bat--crazy Tea Party idiots. The "center" has moved so far right in the past few years it's ridiculous.
Also, I don't think Barack Obama's administration was 'not acting' during his first two years for the reasons you've stated. The reason for my hypothesis is this; nobody could have predicted that the Republican Party was going to be taken over by the Teabaggers. That RIDICULOUS movement is what has caused this extreme polarization in Congress. Let's not forget that during the Clinton administration, one of the greatest eras of post-industrial success in America, the Democrats controlled the Senate AND the House for only the first two years. After that, the Republicans took both the House and the Senate for 6 straight years. Yet without the existence of the Tea Party movement, our country continued to succeed. While I don't agree with nearly ANY conservative ideology, these were still decent men and women who were willing to work with Democrats together to help our country succeed. Barack Obama could not have predicted that this would suddenly change. Should he have acted a little more in his first two years? Definitely. Am I convinced that his error was intentionally devised for his own benefit? Not at all. He can't predict the future, and he certainly couldn't predict that our moronic and uninformed electorate would elect the stupidest people in the United States to the legislative branch.
I'll end this rant by stating that everyone on Fox News should find a fire and die in it. |
|
|
| StrobeLifeNYC |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sedna
That "something" is the Green Party. The Green Party needs more representation, or the Democratic Party needs to embrace liberality over their current center-left stand. |
Completely agree. I wouldn't have agreed in previous years because I think Ralf Nader was an opportunistic clown, but I like what Jill Stein has to say. |
|
|
| Sedna |
| quote: | Originally posted by StrobeLifeNYC
I like what Jill Stein has to say. |
She's wonderful.
In other news, I really really REALLY hope Elizabeth Warren runs in 2012 with the Dems. She'd have my vote in a heartbeat. Love that woman. |
|
|
|
|
