[frankenfish]

Originally Posted by TubaDude

I weep for individuals who fall for everything they hear. Like yourself.

touche. hahahaha

seriously though where were you people when bush was taking away our rights? all of a sudden we have a democrat in the white house and we're immediatly becoming a socialist country. under bush we were becoming a fascist country

[Twilight Inferno]

Originally Posted by frankenfish

touche. hahahaha

seriously though where were you people when bush was taking away our rights? all of a sudden we have a democrat in the white house and we're immediatly becoming a socialist country. under bush we were becoming a fascist country

I was too young to really understand most of what Bush did in his first term. I got an interest in politics near the end of his second term.

As for Obama, I've noticed that with every single decision, he seems to release a statement that he had nothing to do with it. It seems to me that it's more likely that he's telling people what to do off the record and pretending that he never did.

Now, I figure that because... well, he's the perfect politician. He did say 'change' but he never said change to what. Well, now we know. Cash for Clunkers was generally a failure. First they didn't put enough money into it, then when they increased the budget, which increased sales, they didn't give them the money to sustain it because they didn't have the money because they keep borrowing from China.

His stimulus bill is basically filled with fluff. It's a joke. It's a waste of money that will NOT help the economy. All it's doing is funding pet projects.

As for his health care plan, it's proposing to take money from medicare (among other sources, I'm sure) and relocate it to everyone instead of just the old. That wouldn't be a problem in theory, but there are a number of problems with it. First, if they can't handle something as simple as Cash for Clunkers, well, it'll be sorta like the whole Katrina thing if they tried something as complicated as health care.

Second, it seems that he got most of his votes in the election from younger voters. Now if you think about this, it means that he'll want to appeal to younger, and not older, voters in order to be re-elected. If you keep that in mind, then it should be obvious that he was hoping that younger people wouldn't care about older citizens on medicare and be happy about getting cheap health care. It didn't quite work that way, but... It just stinks of corruption.

Now, originally, there was a part in the proposed bill about "End of life counseling". The way it was originally written essentially said that if they couldn't afford to keep someone alive, then you'd talk with them whether they'd like to die or not in the event that their health insurance wouldn't be able to pay for them.

Now, you may be htinking, "The government wouldn't do that!" Well, you're half right. They definitely don't want to, but if you think about it, in a country that's several trillion dollars in debt, they'd kinda be forced to ration health care in order to pay for the whole. In a utilitarian view, keeping a small number of senior citizens alive in exchange for the lives of several more middle-aged citizens is counter-productive. Some people (Glenn Beck) even compared him to Hitler, but he's a bit of a douche.

Now, you may argue that his plan would lower costs in other insurance long enough in order to not need this plan and allow people to use the other insurance at a comparable price. But the problem with this is that if the other insruance companies have ANY sense, they'll keep their prices up. The government won't be able to sustain their plan and the other companies will have a monopoly again, and we'll be out even more money.

Beyond the intricacies of the plan itself, how they handled it was downright retarded. Senior citizens, young people, and middle-aged people (mostly republicans, but some democrats too) have gone to their town halls in order to openly protest the plan because they know it'll hurt them. The left generally said that people that oppose Obama are an angry mob, despite Obama's approval ratings actually having fell below 50% at one point. Logically, this means that roughly half the country is against him. Now, if the left is trying to say that half of the country is an angry mob, then wouldn't they already be dead? I mean, if you think about it, Republicans do like their guns, and the left has a lot of hippies. If we were really an angry mob, we'd have attacked him and he would've attacked us with the military in order to quiet us. He calls us an angry mob, but he's lucky we're not or he'll completely lose public support and get impeached at the cost of a few dozen lives.

But I digress in that topic.

Worst part about this is that he claims responsibility for NONE of this. Absolutely NONE. Yet at the same time, he directly says that the right are nothing but an angry mob. Not fear-mongering. An angry mob. He's said it directly.

As many have said, if the left does it, they're protesters. If the right does it, we're an angry mob.

[frankenfish]

Originally Posted by Twilight Inferno

I was too young to really understand most of what Bush did in his first term. I got an interest in politics near the end of his second term.

As for Obama, I've noticed that with every single decision, he seems to release a statement that he had nothing to do with it. It seems to me that it's more likely that he's telling people what to do off the record and pretending that he never did.

Now, I figure that because... well, he's the perfect politician. He did say 'change' but he never said change to what. Well, now we know. Cash for Clunkers was generally a failure. First they didn't put enough money into it, then when they increased the budget, which increased sales, they didn't give them the money to sustain it because they didn't have the money because they keep borrowing from China.

His stimulus bill is basically filled with fluff. It's a joke. It's a waste of money that will NOT help the economy. All it's doing is funding pet projects.

As for his health care plan, it's proposing to take money from medicare (among other sources, I'm sure) and relocate it to everyone instead of just the old. That wouldn't be a problem in theory, but there are a number of problems with it. First, if they can't handle something as simple as Cash for Clunkers, well, it'll be sorta like the whole Katrina thing if they tried something as complicated as health care.

Second, it seems that he got most of his votes in the election from younger voters. Now if you think about this, it means that he'll want to appeal to younger, and not older, voters in order to be re-elected. If you keep that in mind, then it should be obvious that he was hoping that younger people wouldn't care about older citizens on medicare and be happy about getting cheap health care. It didn't quite work that way, but... It just stinks of corruption.

Now, originally, there was a part in the proposed bill about "End of life counseling". The way it was originally written essentially said that if they couldn't afford to keep someone alive, then you'd talk with them whether they'd like to die or not in the event that their health insurance wouldn't be able to pay for them.

Now, you may be htinking, "The government wouldn't do that!" Well, you're half right. They definitely don't want to, but if you think about it, in a country that's several trillion dollars in debt, they'd kinda be forced to ration health care in order to pay for the whole. In a utilitarian view, keeping a small number of senior citizens alive in exchange for the lives of several more middle-aged citizens is counter-productive. Some people (Glenn Beck) even compared him to Hitler, but he's a bit of a douche.

Now, you may argue that his plan would lower costs in other insurance long enough in order to not need this plan and allow people to use the other insurance at a comparable price. But the problem with this is that if the other insruance companies have ANY sense, they'll keep their prices up. The government won't be able to sustain their plan and the other companies will have a monopoly again, and we'll be out even more money.

Beyond the intricacies of the plan itself, how they handled it was downright retarded. Senior citizens, young people, and middle-aged people (mostly republicans, but some democrats too) have gone to their town halls in order to openly protest the plan because they know it'll hurt them. The left generally said that people that oppose Obama are an angry mob, despite Obama's approval ratings actually having fell below 50% at one point. Logically, this means that roughly half the country is against him. Now, if the left is trying to say that half of the country is an angry mob, then wouldn't they already be dead? I mean, if you think about it, Republicans do like their guns, and the left has a lot of hippies. If we were really an angry mob, we'd have attacked him and he would've attacked us with the military in order to quiet us. He calls us an angry mob, but he's lucky we're not or he'll completely lose public support and get impeached at the cost of a few dozen lives.

But I digress in that topic.

Worst part about this is that he claims responsibility for NONE of this. Absolutely NONE. Yet at the same time, he directly says that the right are nothing but an angry mob. Not fear-mongering. An angry mob. He's said it directly.

As many have said, if the left does it, they're protesters. If the right does it, we're an angry mob.

i'm going to read this more thouroughly and post a better response in the morning but to the angry mob part: you don't see anybody on the left bringing guns to protests do you? lulz

[Twilight Inferno]

Originally Posted by frankenfish

i'm going to read this more thouroughly and post a better response in the morning but to the angry mob part: you don't see anybody on the left bringing guns to protests do you? lulz

No, but most of them don't bring guns. It's a very small number that do.

Sorta like how the black panthers decided to monitor the election with nightsticks.

They're just protecting their interests, after all...

[char]

as a outsider i think that obama will have a hard time with it the first thing that he wants to do is unprivitse the us armd forces that was beging to take place under bush for info cheack out a book called blackwater its so fasinating on that front.

But the former presidant mister bush always braught a good lol moment to the table
and made a idiot of him self if obam can do that with out to much making a ass of himself like bush i think you in for a good run but yet remains to be seen.

better than the stupid idiot we have over here tho.

[fuzzy]

Where are you from Char?

Oh, and Obama may be dropping the public option. Its good, the PO would have unemployed thousands of people. Those 'terrorists' at the town hall meeting are actually making a difference. Cheerio gents.

[TubaDude]

Originally Posted by frankenfish

touche. hahahaha

seriously though where were you people when bush was taking away our rights? all of a sudden we have a democrat in the white house and we're immediatly becoming a socialist country. under bush we were becoming a fascist country

Imma just say that no matter who we have for president, we will obviously disagree with them on certain levels. I haven't been paying attention to the news at all lately and mainly because I am beginning to just not care anymore. Every different president we have will try to change the country in some way. I say screw it and let them figure this out cause there isn't really much we can do anyway.