Something isn't right....

Tom_Radigan · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:46 pm

Æron wrote:

Tom_Radigan wrote:

The liberal media actually glossed over this fact.

1. I doubt that. My memory may be bad, but I seem to remember a minor media shitstorm over the Jeremiah Wright thing.

2. And you seem quite eager to gloss over the existence of the Tea Party's more detestable members, though. Is that why you didn't comment on anything else in my post?

3. I'm not sure which "fact" you're talking about in the first place, all you did is link an biography page on wikipedia about Jeremiah Wright.

Tom_Radigan wrote:

Obama may not be a racist, but he is an opportunist.

What are you referring to specifically in this case that makes you say he is an opportunist? I say of course he's an opportunist, he's a bloody politician.

Tom_Radigan wrote:

Fox News is no worse than the rest of them.

I call BS. They're all bad to varying degrees and are pretty much all lacking in substance and integrity, but Fox News is the worst offender by far. (offhand note: But eh, I don't really care about American news anymore. The BBC is probably best of the big journalism outlets, actually having some degree of journalistic integrity and informational reporting.)

Tom_Radigan wrote:

Bush was an overspender too-on liberal social programs, believe it or not. You thought he was conservative? Guess who wrote the "No Child Left Behind" Act? That paragon of conservatism...Ted Kennedy!

And the recently passed "socialist" healthcare bill which the Republicans hate so much? It seems to have a lot in common with one proposed by someone named Mitt Romney. Funny old world, isn't it? The differences between Republicans and Democrats is not as black and white as their campaign advisors would want us to believe.

Tom_Radigan wrote:

Bush was an overspender too-on liberal social programs

Don't forget the farce war that cost more than a trillion dollars. Oh, and 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives, by some of the more conservative estimates. Americans seem to care more about the number preceded by the $, though. (I'm not talking directly to you, here.)

"Minor media shitstorm." That says it all. Guess how the news media would have treated any Republican candidate who had a longtime pastor known for making racist and hateful comments. Do you honestly believe the media wouldn't have pissed all over that person? Look at the far more conventional Sarah Palin. Depicted as a religious fanatic and idiot, though she is neither.

Farce war? What about our intervention in Yugoslavia? Oh, that's OK because Clinton did it. Never mind it wasn't our war at all, but we had to be called in because the Europeans couldn't deal with it themselves. And as for before the war, did you forget how all the sanctions were killing millions of Iraqis? Oh, and Saddam was such a nice benign leader. Oh please. Even Iraqis who despise us aren't nostalgic about his rule.

Yes, Bush did a LOT of social spending, more than on the wars. Public record.

Any movement has a few detestable members. But you're trying to say all the Tea Party movement is like that. Sorry, that's just wishful thinking. What you really want is to demonize anyone who criticizes the great God Obama.

osprey · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:50 pm

Tom_Radigan wrote:

osprey wrote:

Some reading for Tom. And take note that this was written in 2007, far before the issue of health care reform came up.

It's been clear to me all along, and was just made clearer by Tom's reply to me that this is not so much a protest against the policies of government as it is simply a protest of who is in government. There is no perfect candidate for everybody. And sadly, it seems many of the hardcore republicans harbor values that aren't shared by the greater majority of Americans. Someone's going to be upset, obviously, nobody is going to be happy all the time. However, it seems to me to be more of a stab at the fact that the Democrats are in office, rather than the Republicans...as much as the liberals of America took some possibly unfair stabs at Bush simply because it was Bush.

The Republicans don't have to agree with the reform bill for it to save money. The basis of a public healthcare system is that everyone has access to healthcare, and that more money is available specifically for health care, freeing up other tax money for other things. If you'll refer to the link above, you'll see that a bit of extra money for healthcare may not be such a bad idea. It certainly will help the average American who has an unexpected accident that could cost them tens of thousands of dollars now, but wouldn't cost them more than five thousand under healthcare reform. Give the system time to get operational before you form your opinion, just wait and see how it goes. It's no secret Republicans are largely behind big business, and this includes insurance companies...this could be a bit of an explanation for some of the Republican resistence.

If you really care about your country and your community, you shouldn't have a problem paying a little more in taxes to keep it functioning well and keep your fellow Americans healthy. Now, I know the response here is going to be that the extra money is simply going to be recklessly spent and not go to healthcare, but this is another place where time is a factor. We'll have to wait and see how it goes.

Like I said, you seem to have blind faith, and your response bears this out. I live in Illinois and am not prone to believe in lofty promises. In Illinois years ago, the state lotteries were established (and later legalized gambling) with the idea that those would solve the state's financial problems and more money would be put into education. The truth. More money was NOT, repeat NOT put into education, and the state is in a dire financial crisis no politician in the state will deny. And you wocharge that I don't believe Obama because of who he is. Well, you're right. Most of us residents of Illinois view our politicians as a den of rats(from both parties mind you), and yet you somehow think Obama is magically an exception who's quite different from the others. Only the uninformed or incredibly stupid would believe that. Obama has no credibility value with me. So no, I think that to "wait a few years" will only prove me absolutely right.

If I have blind faith, then you have blind pessimism my friend.

Tom_Radigan · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:25 pm

osprey wrote:

If I have blind faith, then you have blind pessimism my friend.

Not quite so blind. Sure there are good politicians in Illinois, but they are a rare exception-and both parties are guilty on that score. Obama got his political education in this state-and he is no independent of the infamous Richard M. Daley, once popular but now assumed to be a de facto dictator of Chicago with no political opposition to worry about. Obama was elected to the US Senate by accident-his Republican opponent got destroyed in a suddenly-revealed sex scandal and the party could find no replacement in time. He had hardly spent a term in office when he ran for President, and he picked the perfect time. There was an anti-Republican (rather than pro-Democrat) movement in the country, and his major primary opponent floundered, so anyone who was the Democratic nominee would have won, as the Republican candidates were all weak.

What does this have to do with the health care bill? Right now, the economy hasn't been getting better and now the incumbent Democrats look bad; the ball is in their court. So rather suddenly a major health care bill is created, motivated at least in part as a way of telling the voters that the Democrats are able to do something. The fact that it was rushed through without input from the Republicans is telling. Besides that, Obama had to make some sordid deals with certain Democratic congressmen to get their votes for the bill. I haven't read the bill so I can't say exactly what's in it, other than what political commentators say. But the way it was passed doesn't convince me that the bill is a good thing.

Æron · **Joined:** Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:36 pm **Posts:** 1009

You're making a lot of false assumptions about me.

You assume I liked Clinton's presidency or am okay with his foreign policy choices.

You assume I didn't know about or if I did I approved of sanctions on Iraq.

I never said Saddam was a benign leader.

You outright fabricate that I said the Tea Party is composed entirely ("all the Tea Party movement") of the utterly detestable elements that seem to crop up quite often within it. What I DO say is that has attracted an unusually high number of people who are outright ignorant, racist, etc, and has been very effective at stirring up such elements.

I want "to demonize anyone who criticizes the great God Obama"? Strawman again! I have no great reverence for the man. Obama is not my idea of an ideal president. I just support some of his policies. Not that they are perfect either, but his science policies for example, are a far cry better than the previous presidents'. Nay, I just want to call out morons on their BS conspiracy theories of Obama being a "dictator" or having been born in Kenya, etc, and all of the BS misinformation (like the "death panels") being spread by right-wingers about healthcare reform etc that the legislature and Obama have done.

I wish our national political discourse to be a rational, thoughtful debate, and a lot of the Tea Party has been the antithesis of that.

You keep accusing us of having "blind faith", yet you have no evidence for this. For you to know we have "blind faith" that nationalized health care is good, you would have to know that we have never studied it nor looked at the details of it nor the pros and cons. We just went along with it when we were told it would be a good thing. Our glorious leader Obama said one day, "Hey, health care reform would be a good thing" and we just nodded our head in agreement and have never looked back since. Do you really know this, Tom? You seem to have blind faith in our blind faith...

Tom_Radigan wrote:

Right now, the economy hasn't been getting better

That's debatable.

Tom_Radigan wrote:

The fact that it was rushed through without input from the Republicans is telling.

Lie.

Tom_Radigan wrote:

And no, the claim "The Republicans don't want to give Obama a victory is hogwash.

False.

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," -- Senator Jim DeMint

Caoimhin · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:59 am

Tom_Radigan wrote:

Obama was elected to the US Senate by accident-his Republican opponent got destroyed in a suddenly-revealed sex scandal and the party could find no replacement in time.

No one is put into office by accident. Its simply a political fluke, if you would prefer to think of it that way. That made just as much sense as, "The Vice President became the President just because the former President died. Thats not supposed to happen." If the Republican party couldn't find a replacement, thats their problem.

Tom_Radigan wrote:

Right now, the economy hasn't been getting better and now the incumbent Democrats look bad

[/quote]

This is the first statement I actually agree with. It hasn't been getting better, I honestly don't give a shit about stocks. I want to know if THE PEOPLE are improving, not whether companies are making money. This whole trickle-down-economics philosophy needs to stop. This has also led people to falsely (this is where we differ) accuse Democrats as the reason.

Tom_Radigan wrote:

So rather suddenly a major health care bill is created... The fact that it was rushed through without input from the Republicans is telling. Besides that, Obama had to make some sordid deals with certain Democratic congressmen to get their votes for the bill. I haven't read the bill so I can't say exactly what's in it, other than what political commentators say. But the way it was passed doesn't convince me that the bill is a good thing.

The healthcare bill wasn't sudden at all. In fact part of his presidential campaign revolved around him stating that healthcare is a right and that he would reform the system. The Republicans also had plenty of input, they're mainly the reason why it was trimmed down heavily before its passing. You cannot say that Obama did not open dialogue when he actually set up a meeting inviting anyone from either party to come to discuss it (it was even televised, unfortunately at a very bad time in the morning when most people would be at work or school, a major failing on his part). The Republicans were insistant on it being a "trap" weeks before the meeting.

I do not think that the bill that passed is a good thing. I was hoping for socialized healthcare, but all I got was "health insurance reform" (note how Obama changed the wording as the bill was near passing). Its a weak bill, with no public option. I do not so much care about the details of what is in it, but WHAT ISN'T in it.

By the way I would like to know who your political commentators are. I particularly enjoy Glenn Beck (he makes me laugh), Jon Stewart (witty, and not afraid to criticize Obama in a fair manner), and Stephen Colbert (his satire is magically delicious).

Arloest · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:14 am

For the record, the democrats will inevitably lose some seats this coming November. Such is the common trend for all majority parties to suffer two years after their election with little exception. 2002 was an exception, though, because of 9/11.

Tom_Radigan · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:33 am

OK, I confess I misjudged many of you. I see you're not the blind Obama worshippers I thought you were. So many of his supporters, at least the the outset, seemed to view him as God and would fix all our nations problems.

Of course, as everyone hopefully knows by now, at best he's just another politician. As far as political commentators go, the one I mentioned before was Charles Krauthammer, who as far as I know was the only one who actually read the new health care bill and understood its costs and effects. The others are just entertainers.

Trickle-down economics really works, even though it's politically incorrect to admit it. The economy propsered under Reagan, after the horrible mess HE inherited-far worse than the one Obama did. (Yes I remember it well.) It worked under Clinton, even if he didn't use the name. Yes, there was poverty under Reagan, but there was that before and after him too-the news media simply ignored it. It was none other than Patrick Buchanan who said while Clinton was President that there was still poverty. But most everyone else were saying how great things were.

Okay, who is this Charles Krautmhammer I keep referring to? Here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401690.html

Rooster · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:51 pm

You mean Obama isn't Super Jesus?

osprey · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:20 am

Obama's just starting to redeem himself in my eyes, I didn't like what he did (or rather didn't do) for the longest time. I don't blindly support anything, as that's not an intelligent thing to do. At the same time, I don't blindly disagree with anything either. Every person and cause will have its good and bad points.

Bocaj Claw · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:10 am

Rooster wrote:

You mean Obama isn't Super Jesus?

That sounds like the most badass comic of all time. He could fight crime and uphold the American way and help teens and punch unwed teen mothers and spread love thy neighboring all over the place! Plus, he'd have heat vision.

Maggot Brain · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:13 am

I try not to get involved in political discussions, but I gotta say something:

Tom_Radigan wrote:

Trickle-down economics really works, even though it's politically incorrect to admit it. The economy propsered under Reagan, after the horrible mess HE inherited-far worse than the one Obama did. (Yes I remember it well.) It worked under Clinton, even if he didn't use the name. Yes, there was poverty under Reagan, but there was that before and after him too-the news media simply ignored it. It was none other than Patrick Buchanan who said while Clinton was President that there was still poverty. But most everyone else were saying how great things were.

I wouldn't really call a $2 trillion national debt accumulated by a spree of nothing but defense spending 'prosperous'.

And admittedly I don't know a lot about what trickle-down economics are, but isn't it pretty much "give rich people more money and hope it gets to the poor somehow?"

Tom_Radigan · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:08 am

Maggot Brain wrote:

I try not to get involved in political discussions, but I gotta say something:

Tom_Radigan wrote:

Trickle-down economics really works, even though it's politically incorrect to admit it. The economy propsered under Reagan, after the horrible mess HE inherited-far worse than the one Obama did. (Yes I remember it well.) It worked under Clinton, even if he didn't use the name. Yes, there was poverty under Reagan, but there was that before and after him too-the news media simply ignored it. It was none other than Patrick Buchanan who said while Clinton was President that there was still poverty. But most everyone else were saying how great things were.

I wouldn't really call a $2 trillion national debt accumulated by a spree of nothing but defense spending 'prosperous'.

And admittedly I don't know a lot about what trickle-down economics are, but isn't it pretty much "give rich people more money and hope it gets to the poor somehow?"

Nothing but defense spending? If you bothered to look it up, you'd find that only about a third of the federal budget goes to defense spending. More of it goes to welfare, and that was true then and now.

$2 trillion national debt? Want to look at what Obama is spending? Prosperity is when people get jobs and we don't have double-digit inflation and unemployment. Which we had before Reagan took office.

And yes, money does go to the poor when the economy booms. Jobs are created. Take some basic economics and learn a few things.

Maggot Brain · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:15 am

Tom_Radigan wrote:

$2 trillion national debt? Want to look at what Obama is spending? Prosperity is when people get jobs and we don't have double-digit inflation and unemployment. Which we had before Reagan took office.

It was painfully obvious that you'd pull the Obama card here. Just saying, that's a lot of pantsless money to spend no matter who's doing it.

And I think the word "prosperous" has been toned down in recent years. I won't think we're prosperous until I get a bushel of money delivered to my front door with a card from Obama that says "Just Because".

Tom_Radigan wrote:

And yes, money does go to the poor when the economy booms. Jobs are created. Take some basic economics and learn a few things.

So yeah...giving rich people more money in the hopes that it'll get to poor people somehow.

Bocaj Claw · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:36 am

Sadly, jobs being created doesn't always lead to economic booms. Last year or so a bunch of green jobs were created with the usual hullaballoo about it being a growth industry. It turns out that a lot of those jobs that were being created were being outsourced. So, yeah. Sometimes the trickle down trickles to other places.

osprey · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:44 am

What the money really should be going to is schooling and support programs for the poor. pants giving more money to the rich...there's so many other places it could go other than the poor.

Something isn't right....

Who is online