• 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 2013 |OT3| 1,000 Years of Darkness and Nuclear Fallout

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wilsongt

Member
Guys! Guys! Guys! Obama isn't a socialist. He's a "socialist".


The Five: If Obama’s Not a ‘Real Socialist,’ Does That Make Him a ‘Fake’ One?



Fox News’ The Five kicked off its Monday afternoon show with a look at an off-hand comment President Barack Obama made at last week’s Wall Street Journal CEO Summit. “People call me a socialist sometimes,” the president said. “But, no, you gotta meet real socialists. You’ll have a sense of what a socialist is.”

Eric Bolling tied Obama’s remarks to a New York Times piece that quoted Obama advisers discussing how the administration has actively steered clear of the term “redistribution” in reference to the Affordable Care Act. “Conservatives like me think he’s a socialist,” Bolling said. “but the president doesn’t always see it that way.” After playing the soundbite in question, he added, “He’s not a real socialist, he’s just a fake socialist.”

Bob Beckel disagreed, saying of Obama, “to call him a socialist is really just obscene and absurd.” He openly admitted that there are elements of “redistribution” in the health care law, but said there’s no other way to get everybody in the country covered.

“At least Bob doesn’t deny it,” Greg Gutfeld said, attacking Obama for trying to “hide” the true nature of the law. “In order to achieve their aims, they mask their ideology,” he said. “Whatever you say about conservatives, whether you like them or hate them, they tell you what they believe in.”


“Maybe redistribution isn’t necessarily socialism,” Bolling admitted. “Maybe we don’t live with the socialist president. Maybe we have a president who simply believes in the welfare state.”

For Kimberly Guilfoyle it all came down to “dishonesty” on Obama’s part. “It offends me they think the American people are naive and aren’t going to figure this out,” she said. “They have to ban words. Don’t call it terrorism, don’t call it redistribution. Because they’re trying to hide the truth. Be frank. Come out and say exactly what you believe and what you think the direction of country should be.”

Oh the irony!

America's #1 cable news channel, ladies and gentlemen.
 

Averon

Member
He's not socialist therefor he is socialist! What a stupid way of thinking, man Fox News is awful.

Fox's been beating the socialist angle for 5+ years now. They just can't back away from it now, especially since it has been so engrained in their viewership that it's taken as fact.
 
Fox's been beating the socialist angle for 5+ years now. They just can't back away from it now, especially since it has been so engrained in their viewership that it's taken as fact.
Conservatives have always used socialist. It's not new or special to Obama.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Wonkblog on the state of the healthcare.gov site:

A spin through HealthCare.Gov this morning went smoothly. The site loaded quickly. The process progressed easily. There were no error messages or endless hangs. I didn't complete the final step of purchasing insurance but, until then, the site worked -- or at least appeared to work -- exactly as intended.

My experience isn't rare. There are increasing reports that HealthCare.Gov is working better -- perhaps much better -- for consumers than it was a few short weeks ago. "Consumer advocates say it is becoming easier for people to sign up for coverage," report Sandhya Somashekhar and Amy Goldstein in the Washington Post. "The truth is, the system is getting stronger as it recovers from its disastrous launch," writes Sam Baker in the National Journal. Applying "was no problem at all, with no delays," says Paul Krugman.

Reports from inside the health care bureaucracy are also turning towards optimism. People who knew the Web site was going to be a mess on Oct. 1st are, for the first time, beginning to think HealthCare.Gov might work. Data backs them up: By mid-November, the pace of enrollment in the federal exchanges had doubled from what it was in October.

The Obama administration is certainly acting like they believe the site has turned the corner. Somashekhar and Goldstein report that they're "moving on to the outreach phase, which had taken a back seat as they grappled with the faulty Web site. Next week, the White House will host an insurance-oriented 'youth summit' aimed at people ages 18 to 35, an age group whose participation in the health-care law will be critical to its success."

...

The worry, at this point, is that the site is working in ways that are visible but broken in ways that are harder to see. The Obama administration won't answer direct questions on the percentage of "834s" -- the forms insurers need to sign people up for the correct policies at the correct prices -- that are coming through with errors. Robert Laszewski, a health-industry consultant with deep contacts among the insurers, told the National Journal the problem is getting better, but that his clients are still seeing a five percent error rate. That's still too high.

...

Still, it's clear that HealthCare.Gov is improving -- and, at this point, it's improving reasonably quickly. It won't work perfectly by the end of November but it might well work tolerably early in December. A political system that's become overwhelmingly oriented towards pessimism on Obamacare will have to adjust as the system's technological infrastructure improves.
It seems they'll be where they need to be at the end of the month in terms of the user experience, but still need to resolve issues on the back end. It sounds like they prioritized one other the other and will shift to focus on the interface with insurance companies increasingly as the site stabilizes. A 5% error rate is high but not disastrous.

Given the increased pace of sign ups, I'm optimistic about how things are tracking for year end.
 

Chichikov

Member
From the pope quoting st. John


You didn't build that
That whole exhortation is just a thing a of beauty, the man bring the heavy theological guns, comparing inequality to murder, comparing greed to the golden calf idolatry, he does not mess around and he does not mince words.
 
Wonkblog on the state of the healthcare.gov site:


It seems they'll be where they need to be at the end of the month in terms of the user experience, but still need to resolve issues on the back end. It sounds like they prioritized one other the other and will shift to focus on the interface with insurance companies increasingly as the site stabilizes. A 5% error rate is high but not disastrous.

Given the increased pace of sign ups, I'm optimistic about how things are tracking for year end.

Steven Benen commented on how the narrative is turning on the law.

Also, sadly, SCOTUS is prepped to hear a birth control case. :(
 
BaAPoJ4IEAAdLm9.jpg:large


no comment.

I don't even understand this comic. Is he really alleging that there will be a rise in STDs because Obamacare covers birth control?
 

bonercop

Member
I told you the website will end any hope of Democratic dominance in politics today, and it looks like I'm right.

you can start saying this when those numbers hold 2 months from now. saying this right now is just lolz, given how the website and enrollment statistics are improving.

meanwhile, Republicans haven't recovered one bit as far as approval ratings go since the shutdown. They're still below 30%. people are still angry about the shutdown. people probably won't be angry about obamacare if the problems with website are fixed.
 

leroidys

Member
Can't link now but dems are down 49-47 on latest CNN generic House ballot. Truly amazing.

This is truly terrifying.

This makes me far less confident in this country than Ted Cruz's suicide mission. We are well and truly fucked if people are too stupid to remember who put us on the brink of economic catastrophe to sate their own egos.

What a sad farce American Democracy has become.
 

KingK

Member
That comic is disgustingly sexist. Holy shit. The man bears no responsibility for getting an STD, it's all the fault of that promiscuous woman and Obama for enabling her promiscuity.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
That comic is disgustingly sexist. Holy shit. The man bears no responsibility for getting an STD, it's all the fault of that promiscuous woman and Obama for enabling her promiscuity.

His website has to be a satire, right? http://comicallyincorrect.com/about-a-f-branco/

“Branco is a surgeon and his pen is his scalpel, an instrument he wields with laser-like precision in cutting through the philosophical morass of liberal orthodoxy.”
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I was expecting worse, but it still sucks.

I guess a website not working and horror stories about the law matter more than a group of 40-50 people who were literally on the brink of causing a global economic collapse?

Scary stuff.

And since then the republican house has single handedly cut the snap program of which half of that money went to starving children and blocked the extremely popular LBGT anti discrimination bill.

It's not that I'm nervous. I know the polls will change another 5 times before the actual elections. It's just that this is exactly why democrats act like they are walking on eggshells about every single last thing and try their best to never get anything actually done, because all they need to do is mess up even one tiny bit, and people will turn out in droves against them. It's that fact that's so upsetting.

Political discourse is fucked in this country. All anyone cares to talk about are the negatives about everything. It's certainly fair to talk about website glitches and people dropping their plans, but shouldn't that also come with notes that the website is only used by half the states and people in all states can sign up through a working call center? Shouldn't we also be talking about the reasoning why those dropped plans have to be dropped?

And from the way everyone's talking you'd think half the people are having their plans dropped and 100% of the people can't even turn on healthcare.gov, when at this time healthcare.gov is still usable and people with dropped insurance plans represent a small percentage.

I don't think independents are republican. I think independents just want to be outraged at everything either side does without actually putting in the thought about why most positive actions come with some occasional negatives.
 
Scalia is already salivating.
http://bit.ly/185cQ1C

"One thing I think is crystal clear -- there is no First Amendment violation by this law," Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. "The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws."
The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws. The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for consuming peyote as part of a religious tradition, seeing as the drug was illegal in the state.
 

Diablos

Member
So if Hobby Lobby wins, what are the implications?

An employer can deny any employee anything just because they claim it is against their religious beliefs? How far can it go?
 

Diablos

Member
Yeah, Scalia is a shitstain.

Only Roberts can save us now. But given his religious views I do not think he will be so forgiving this time.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Those shitty poll numbers aren't surprising. The media's been having a field day with the website and has been hammering that issue for more than a month. It literally got more coverage than the fucking government shutdown.

It also doesn't help that liberals helped reinforce the narrative with their stupid inability to deny reality.


Dude's legit retard.
 
And since then the republican house has single handedly cut the snap program of which half of that money went to starving children and blocked the extremely popular LBGT anti discrimination bill.

It's not that I'm nervous. I know the polls will change another 5 times before the actual elections. It's just that this is exactly why democrats act like they are walking on eggshells about every single last thing and try their best to never get anything actually done, because all they need to do is mess up even one tiny bit, and people will turn out in droves against them. It's that fact that's so upsetting.
.

Meanwhile seemingly, they let the GOP get away with almost destroying the fucking world economy.

Good fucking GOD.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Meanwhile seemingly, they let the GOP get away with almost destroying the fucking world economy.

Good fucking GOD.

There are people out there pandering the rhetoric that the gays are using ENDA to fight back against religion.

The minds of some people in the echo chamber are truly scary.

Wait, wait, wait.

The NEW Pope said that?

Yeah, this new pope isn't half bad. We need more Popes from the west, the US and Canada excluded. Fuck off, Dolan.
 
I told you the website will end any hope of Democratic dominance in politics today, and it looks like I'm right.

That's like saying the GOP was completely dead right after the government shut-down.

The voting public has the memory of a gnat. Stuff blows over in due time.


I think the bigger picture matters more . . . things like the demographic shift. Not some story 24 hour or even 2 month horizon. It is not like Benghazi, IRS, and newspaper phone tapping are killing Obama right now . . . all largely forgotten except by hardcore that like or dislike him regardless of those things.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
That's like saying the GOP was completely dead right after the government shut-down.

The voting public has the memory of a gnat. Stuff blows over in due time.


I think the bigger picture matters more . . . things like the demographic shift. Not some story 24 hour or even 2 month horizon. It is not like Benghazi, IRS, and newspaper phone tapping are killing Obama right now . . . all largely forgotten except by hardcore that like or dislike him regardless of those things.

I seem to remember Aaron Strife proclaiming democrats would win the House after that...
 

Diablos

Member
That's like saying the GOP was completely dead right after the government shut-down.

The voting public has the memory of a gnat. Stuff blows over in due time.


I think the bigger picture matters more . . . things like the demographic shift. Not some story 24 hour or even 2 month horizon. It is not like Benghazi, IRS, and newspaper phone tapping are killing Obama right now . . . all largely forgotten except by hardcore that like or dislike him regardless of those things.
The problem is Healthcare, Benghazi, IRS, phone tapping blah blah is not just remembered by the "hardcore". It is a perceived leadership problem when I'd argue over 70% of the time it is stuff blown way out of proportion.
 
We refer to that enemy as "the United Nations."

(Nauru--population: 9378--as the same number of votes as India--population: 1,210,193,422. That's a 129046:1 advantage! Totally undemocratic and outdated, right?)

Well, it is good to see a conservative defending the UN for the first time since 1946.

But, actually, yes. If the UN ever actually held any real power, I'd be for representation based on population there. Since it's a mostly toothless organization where five huge countries have veto power over the few important things that come through, the one vote per nation model is all right.
 
Steven Benen commented on how the narrative is turning on the law.

Also, sadly, SCOTUS is prepped to hear a birth control case. :(

Not sure why this is a bad thing. There are like 85 different rulings on this. One of the most important reasons the SCOTUS take a case is to stop multiple rulings in different districts to make things clear. It was inevitable this case was going to be taken up.

Furthermore, I'm confident the law will hold up. Besides the case you brought up with Scalia, even if they change their mind and rule in favor of religious beliefs for corporations, it will still fail under strict scrutiny. It's obvious a legitimate gov't interest to provide birth control to women, it obviously narrowly tailored to accomplish that goal, and I think it could be argued to be the least restrictive means (they'll find some hodge-podge way of arguing this).

Not that I even think it will come down to strict scrutiny. The idea that a corporation can cite religion in an attempt to affect the way their employees consume a service mandated buy law is absurd and even this Court won't buy it (well, Thomas will for sure). Ruling in favor would open pandora's box to a lot of things. "My religion says sickness is god's will, therefor i am exempt from employer mandate." yeah, not happening.
 

Chichikov

Member
Wow. I knew this new guy said that Christians should be a lot more tolerant of the gays and the sluts, but this is the first time I'm seeing him talk on economic issues.

Can't wait to see the righties spin this.
The man was dropping truth bombs all over that exhortation.
You can read the full text here, I think it's worth reading the relevant part.
 
The man was dropping truth bombs all over that exhortation.
You can read the full text here, I think it's worth reading the relevant part.

Its an amazing piece of work. I have a new found respect for the guy. I was really hesitant about him and the church in the beginning but I this document has officially won me over its an amazing piece of work that I think really shows what kind of man he is.

Edit: I'm just gonna post it.
We can only praise the steps being taken to improve people’s welfare in areas such as health care, education and communications. At the same time we have to remember that the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day, with dire consequences. A number of diseases are spreading. The hearts of many people are gripped by fear and desperation, even in the so-called rich countries. The joy of living frequently fades, lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is increasingly evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little dignity. This epochal change has been set in motion by the enormous qualitative, quantitative, rapid and cumulative advances occuring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant application in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge and information, which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power.

Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

No to the new idolatry of money

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power.[/B] [<- Shout out to South America] To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves

57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside of the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics &#8211; a non-ideological ethics &#8211; would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: &#8220;Not to share one&#8217;s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs&#8221;.[55]

58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders.[/B] I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and a return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.

No to the inequality which spawns violence

59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples is reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society &#8211; whether local, national or global &#8211; is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called &#8220;end of history&#8221;,[<- Pope calling out Fukuyama] since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.

60. Today&#8217;s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. This serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an &#8220;education&#8221; that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries &#8211; in their governments, businesses and institutions &#8211; whatever the political ideology of their leaders.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a &#8220;disposable&#8221; culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society&#8217;s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised &#8211; they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the &#8220;exploited&#8221; but the outcast, the &#8220;leftovers&#8221;.
Yo damn. This is incredibly spot-on.
 
It's a bad thing because SCOTUS is likely to rule with the religious folks here. You think Kennedy, who voted to outlaw the entirety of ACA, will give in on this specific measure?

Yes. Easily.

it's a completely different Constitutional question.

Allowing the individual mandate = gov't can force people to buy anything it chooses.

Allowing corps 1st amendment religious rights = corps can avoid almost all laws.

In both cases, Kennedy fears opening Pandora's box. Only in this case, it goes the other way. No way the Court doesn't allow it the provision from the ACA. I guarantee it.
 
Yes. Easily.

it's a completely different Constitutional question.

Allowing the individual mandate = gov't can force people to buy anything it chooses.

Allowing corps 1st amendment religious rights = corps can avoid almost all laws.

In both cases, Kennedy fears opening Pandora's box. Only in this case, it goes the other way. No way the Court doesn't allow it the provision from the ACA. I guarantee it.
I remain unconvinced. SCOTUS doesn't surprise me anymore.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Reading the rest of that, while I wouldn't use the same rhetoric in some cases, I'd have a hard time substantively disagreeing with much of it. Am I to believe that his emphasis on "human beings" is a swipe at corporate personhood? I'd like to think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom