AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
WTF. Are you daft?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
WTF. Are you daft?
Most of the stuff that Obama passed is as liberal as could possibly pass through Congress. If you want to punish someone go after Congress, not him.
Otherwise kiss the Supreme Court goodbye for another generation.
Just waiting for one of these predictions to actually come true, rather than trying to fake it and equate a weather pattern to proof (comically, after being told for a decade weather was not climate).
Should anyone want to make an avatar bet on that Florida map in 2099, I'm game (I plan on still being alive)
It has been shockingly effective throughout human history as Earth has warmed and cooled.
So, today Obama will be speaking about 10min away from my office, and the older, teabagger lady co-worker is whining about it. She complained about how Obama only goes to blue & swing states, never has "the balls" to go to red state for an event, like Mitt does for blue states. I didn't want to crush her Fox News-reality by telling her the Lone Star state has been good for Obama.
But I understand her complaint about Obama speaking 10min from here at 4:10pm. Traffic may be a headache on the way home.
Like most of his posts, he was clearly just trying to annoy/troll others in that thread. Manos was asking for it.
hmm...so I'll have beach front property in the not-so-distant future? nice
But I understand her complaint about Obama speaking 10min from here at 4:10pm. Traffic may be a headache on the way home.
Like most of his posts, he was clearly just trying to annoy/troll others in that thread. Manos was asking for it.
hmm...so I'll have beach front property in the not-so-distant future? nice
Obama,Biden, Michelle Obama Cancel Todays Events
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/biden-michelle-obama-cancel-todays-events
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/biden-michelle-obama-cancel-todays-events
So awesome.
American inflation is below 2 percent today. Economically speaking, it would actually be good for everybody if we printed some cash -- we might actually get some growth. If Bernanke would get off the pot, that is.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
No doubt that I bet the President might want to issue a full on statement about the tragedy of the mass shooting in Denver in maybe a mini press event. I know he issued a short statement this morning.
Not even remotely worried about loss of coastline. Beach erosion was happening here before I came to the US in'86. The CFPA stuff sounds cool, but I thought those lax CC policies were enacted under a Dem-controlled Congress. I don't care about Detroit and its self-inflicted wounds, nor the frivolous war on terror. Like I said, he's done little for me personally.
Agreed to a point, but let's take healthcare for example. The initial proposal by a Dem-controlled government never even had a public option, much less single-payer system. That's not extreme, that's upholding your parties policies and offering something for your base. They started from a position of compromise and it only got worse from there. Why? Because elected Dems don't believe in their platform enough to actually back it. They thought they'd catch backlash and lose their jobs. Well...look at the Reps. Dudes are going in raw, already calling for a complete repeal of the plan. That' could be called extreme, or could be considered starting with your principles before you compromise.
One party believes its policies and concepts are right. One party will just do whatever it takes to please their constituents. I didn't vote for Obama for pseudo-Republican policies. I thought I was voting for change. Obama takes a ton of blame for the way healthcare turned out IMO.
Not all Reps are white. Lots of hispanics and some blacks vote Rep too. Why? I have no clue. However, it's certainly not due to white privilege.
Obama might or might not be better than Clinton IMO, but that's kind of irrelevant. If this is the best effort we can get from the best president in 30 years, then you tell me what motivation I should have to vote for him again. I'm a liberal. I don't consider that a bad word, so I don't want to keep voting for people who treat it like a bad word. Democrats seems far too scared of being labeled liberal...with some exceptions, of course.
An improvement? OK. But now we're stuck on this particular path, being mandated to pay a for-profit industry that's shown not an ounce of scruples up to this point. Short of the Reps repealing it and basically hitting the reset button, there's no way we're gonna get any sort of public option. One of the arguments at the time was that we needed to get some sort of foothold with the plan, but did anyone think it would all be privatized? In a way, haven't we done part of the Reps' work for them? They've wanted to privatize Medicare (and Social Security), and this is a step in that direction. It frustrates me to no end.
Anyway, thanks for the well thought out response. I've just kinda of lost my patience with it all now and I feel more comfortable voting for a true liberal that will lose than a moderate who'll win and just frustrate me some more. At least I don't feel like I'm going against my principles that way. PEACE.
Re: Eduction -- late to the topic but online education will probably solve the education and student loan crisis in the long term. We've reached the point now that a well delivered online course is roughly the equivalent of a lecture hall style classroom, and should be appropriate for most 101 and 201 level topics.
The only thing missing is the legitimacy of online education, but I think that is a problem that's already solving itself. We just need to kick the bit players out of the space and get more traditionally successful universities to start participating.
The only thing missing is the legitimacy of online education, but I think that is a problem that's already solving itself. We just need to kick the bit players out of the space and get more traditionally successful universities to start participating.
So you think the "war on terror" is frivolous but the guy ending that useless spending didn't do something good by getting us out of it?
Who cares who passed those lax CC policies (FYI, its long been a bipartisan effort)? Obama made it a priority to put some lock downs on it.
Detroit's wounds might have been self inflicted, but you can't say it was bad policy or that it didn't have major positive impacts on the nation as a whole. What amounted to a now nearly repaid loan has helped save a major economic backbone of this country. Those self inflicted wounds would have hurt the entire nation if the bleeding hadn't been stemmed at the source.
And those are the ones who fear change (typically in the form of gay rights). Not all of the three apply to every conservative, but almost always at least one does.
Clinton was a con man who is responsible for large portions of our current economic clusterfuck. Who do you think signed off on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which removed Glass-Steagall? Then one foot out the door Bill Clinton who never pushed for long term reform and instead just worked to inflate the economic bubble so he looked good. He was a charlatan, nothing more. The only recent POTUS to give Obama a real run for his money in terms of being a responsible leader was George H.W. Bush, and he got turned into a one term president by not being a self serving ideologue. Now people like you refuse to keep the current guy from suffering the same fate.
So a president who has publicly endorsed gay rights, has openly acknowledged that private sector only exists thanks to public sector services, and is trying to patch all the massive holes in our social safety net is running from the term "liberal"? He doesn't rule with an iron fist. Sounds like you want a liberal president who at the same time agrees with Bush's joke the being president would be a heck of a lot easier if this was a dictatorship.
You do know that one of the main arguments the far right makes against Obamacare is that it has, in their view, locked us into a path towards the public option, right?
States are going to be required to set up insurance exchanges of some kind. Already we see Vermont's solution to that being a single payer model. The fear on the right is that once these exchanges are set up more and more companies will just dump their employees along with the required fee into the gov't. managed exchange. More progressive states will take up single payer models more quickly, but in the end enough people will be working through the exchange and that exchange will be regulated enough on both the federal and state levels to bring it as close to single payer as you can get without outright shuttering insurance companies.
Then as their profit margins shrink they'll be reduced to nothing more than a servicing company who effectively manages your gov't. run healthcare.
The notion that we could step from where we were pre-2008 straight into a single payer system, killing several of the largest companies in this nation instantly, is a fantasy. They have too much power, too many lobbyists, and honestly employ too many people. Instead Obamacare creates a roadmap by which those companies will likely be starved into the margins and then more easily replaced.
Rep. John Conyers (Dem from Michigan) speaks to that here.
The big problem with your viewpoint is that you're painting Obama with too broad a brush. You're assigning to him all the failures of the democratically controlled congress and senate, when those weren't things he could truly control.
Within the scope of the presidency Obama has been an incredibly progressive president without descending into full blown left wing extremism. His foreign policy management is better than what any left wing ideologue could ever dream up. His economic efforts are being focused on long term gains, not quick fixes that give us nothing. His social reforms are the most comprehensive of any democrat since FDR brought us the New Deal. Yet somehow that isn't good enough because he should have been able to crack the whip from day one and make the entire party deliver us some sort of leftist utopia?
I've always said that about 95% of the politicians in this country are con men out for their own and nothing else. Regardless of what letter is in parenthesis after a guy's name, if I can feel secure in the fact that he's part of the remaining 5% and actually gives a shit he's got my vote. Barack Obama is just about the most obvious example of someone in that 5% you'll find in D.C. today. Its the obligation of all rational individuals to stand up for the handful of politicians who actually want to improve this country by keeping them in office for as long as possible.
empty vessel
Member
This doesn't mean what you think it means. In fact, the opposite. Zimbabwe could never run out of these, it can only run out of things to buy with them. In other words, you're asking the wrong question. If you want to make a point that hyperinflation can occur under certain circumstances--a different assertion from one that a currency-issuing government can go bankrupt--and that the US is in danger of this like Zimbabwe, you will have to explain how the US economy is similar to Zimbabwe's economy at the time.
(Also, I have one of these.)
I look at voting as a strategic move. I don't like everything Obama or the dems do, but they're much closer to what I want to see happening so I want them to not just do good, but do great.
If both sides continue to only do 'okay' we'll be stuck like this forever. If you vote third party, you're merely perpetuating this 'middle of the road' dynamic that you rant against.
But if you want to see more liberalism, you want the dems to demolish the republicans. When elected offices are continuously stacked with dems, it will signal a shift in the electorate. We'd then have the option to vote for moderate liberals and more extreme liberals.
It will take small changes over time. Baby steps are still steps in the right direction.
Blergmeister
Member
Is he victim blaming when he asks why no one in the theater was carrying a weapon?
I think he's just using it as an opportunity to support gun rights.
"THIS WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM IF EVERYONE HAD A GUN!"
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Disgusting but more of the same. We will probably hear Pat Robertson say something similar.
that... was... insane.
The dude threw two canisters of tear gas into the crowd. Someone blindly returning fire in a packed movie theater (it was a goddamned midnight showing) would have improved the situation in his God-fearing eyes?
Blergmeister
Member
"Sir, Colorado already allows conceal carry."
"THEY NEED TO ALLOW IT HARDER!!!!11"
I still feel justified in calling him out for blaming the victims.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Earthly tear gas does not impair the Hand of God.
Shadow Hog
Member
IIRC he was also wearing bulletproof armor, wasn't he?
Yes. And a ballistics helmet and gas mask. This was an act of an unbridled madman; the best bet any of us have of preventing something like this from occurring probably would be divine intervention.
I guess America hasn't been praying hard enough...
speculawyer
Member
He is probably going to eat those words.
Ugh, another one of these shootings. :-( But to some degree, I'm happy that this does not happen more often considering the economic conditions and the number of guns out there. When people lose everything then they often 'lose it'.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Unlike a lot of other shooters, he was armed to cause maximum damage without being taken down.
speculawyer
Member
Pat Robertson is more sane than Gohmert these days. Robertson has been burned by stupid statements like that so he generally doesn't issue such snap judgments as much.
This sums up the problem with the American mentality pretty well. If the President isn't doing things "for you" then you can't approve of his policies. Never mind what may be good for the welfare of the country, or even the planet / world / humanity in general. Me me me.
NihonTiger90
Member
He's in an R+21 district in Texas. He might catch shit for saying that from folks across the country but he will keep his seat.
Byakuya769
Member
Nah, he owns a lot of property in central Florida, probably.
maximum360
Member
Same here. I'll just say that ours is equivalent to the cost of a small condo in Washington, DC. Quite depressing. It's like we're paying two mortgages.
my wife carries the load on that one. She went for her doctorate in a field that pays... ok. Mine is done, we spent time on her credit cards that she used to live on while she was in school. Its no condo level, but it more then enough for a downpayment on a really nice place in Philly
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Yeah, mine's depressing as hell too. I've got, I think, about $45,000-$50,000 in student debt. My wife has somewhere around $6000 (thank god she dropped out).
I'll be paying off the government for 15 years total, and that payment will keep going up. I'll be paying Sallie Mae for 30 years, but those payments will stay about the same. Right now my payments are about $350 or so per month, and my wife pays $80.
What's really shitty about that debt is that without that debt we could move on with our lives. We could think about a house, or think about having a kid. But the way it is now, it's just too large of a payment every month, so we're just stuck waiting for me to find a much higher paying job.
To my knowledge, a PPP poll is the only recent poll estimating a large lead for Obama in Virginia. Could you provide the other polls? Otherwise, the three most recent polls estimate a closer race.
The inanity of that statement is only surpassed by the number of conservative Christians who share it. It's axiomatic that most of our social ills resulted from taking God out of schools.
The violence in Syria is unfortunate. But I don't understand the exasperation at China and Russia. Ignoring their strategic concerns, they're not exactly paragons of liberalism. I'd be more surprised if they acceded to measures condemning an authoritarian regime for violating human rights. And although your sentiments regarding the UN are ubiquitous, it stems from a misunderstanding of the UN's role. Effectively, the UN, or more accurately the UNSC, is a platform to conduct major power relations. And it functions ably in that capacity. Further, I suspect we've refrained from intervening because it would be imprudent. The responsibility of deposing and then administering the transition necessitates a major commitment with a high probability of deteriorating into a regional quagmire. Unfortunately, nobility is not invariably feasible.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Ohhhhhhh. Oh, that makes more sense. I wondered what people were making a fuss about. I mean, I still think that was a stupid quote to jump on, but it makes a bit more sense now.
lol, then I guess it is pretty funny. Not a gaffe or anything, really, but kind of a funny coincidence.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
Well if this is just hysterics, it's fucking working. I'm having a panic attack.
Well if this is just hysterics, it's fucking working. I'm having a panic attack.
What? Its pretty standard.
My wife was the valedictorian of her high school, had a full tuition scholarship to undergrad, graduated magna cum laude, top student in her department, got a fully funded graduate assitantship for her M.A., completed it in record time (20 months), then got a fully funded graduate assistantship for her PhD. She's gotten one B in her entire life, and that was our junior year of undergrad when she took an 18 hour credit load while being the TA for three 100 person 101 lectures. That class was a gen ed. requirement directly overlapped by one of her lectures so she literally never went and lost 10 points on the final grade for "attendance".
She finished with $100,000 in college loans. Because it doesn't matter how awesome you are, if you aren't in the hard sciences pursuing a graduate degree means stipends that barely beat out doing 20 hours a week at Starbucks, far too small to cover cost of living. She had to take out loans all through school just to have a place to live and a way to get to classes/work.
Hell, I graduated with $20K in debt and I:
1. received $14K in scholarships my first year of college, with $4K of annual renewal scholarships.
2. worked between two and three jobs every year I was in college. My last two years of school I spent my summers pulling asbestos 10-12 hours a day M-F, then worked 8-10 hours Saturday and Sunday landscaping under the table for a friend. Once the school year started I worked a part time work study job M-F while taking classes, still did landscaping and snow removal every Sat and Sun for 8-10 hours, and spent both Christmas breaks and spring breaks back pulling asbestos.
That was so I could cover what the government deemed my parents reasonable contribution to my education while still affording a home, a car (no public transportation available in town), books, etc..
For a lot of people going to college isn't exactly easy.
Yeah, it got me too.
Doesn't help that it's gonna be close to 110 degrees here in Oklahoma today.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I don't care that it is standard practice, it is asinine to take on that much debt for jobs that don't create that much income in return...
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
You know, its funny, just yesterday I was reading Foundation and Earth for the first time and one of the characters says that a planet could have been rendered uninhabitable by its population's disregard for the environment and the other character rejects it, saying "I find it hard to believe that any group of people could behave so foolishly as to not recognize the importance of sustaining the system that keeps them alive"
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
If the world burns, at least he can look back and say he didn't compromise his principles. We should all be so fortunate.
It's either that or give up on your dreams and a chance at upwards mobility. I exaggerate a bit, but that's how it feels to young people nowadays.
reggieandTFE
Member
It's the American way! Haven't you heard that the solution to the structural/policy changes (free trade, de-unionization) to replace living wage, blue collar jobs in this country is for everyone to earn BAs?
my wife will be doing something she loves and will have it paid off by 40. As opposed to not doing what she wanted to do
I would agree. My wife regrets even pursuing her PhD. This from a woman who was told at every level that she was the most exceptional student they've had. She literally TAed lecture classes for two years in undergrad, managed a published journal in her masters, and organized full on academic conferences while doing her PhD.
If that kind of person can't pursue the highest level of education without regret in this country that is pretty damn fucked up.
My debt I knew was coming because despite being an exceptional individual I was born into a very poor, very rural family. Is what it is. My earnings have more than off-set any debt I took on.
But hey, on the subject of "Obama kicks ass any nobody ever talks about it", the income based repayment system he sponsored, got passed, and then moved the timetable up on sure is making it easier to manage my wife's mountain of debt. That and her debt will be forgiven if it's not fully paid in 10 years anyways because she helps vets who's brains have been turned to mashed potatoes from bomb attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan learn how to function in society.
- Status