Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The hate for Obama

Options
1…1112131517

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,319 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    imokyrok wrote: »
    Collaboration is impossible
    Improbable. Not Impossible.

    Says it all really. "Can't work with them. Sorry. Its too hard. Impossible. Why bother. Continue to Split Country. F*ck Them."

    people with your damned Absolutes.

    This thread is only making me angry. Im disappointed with you all right now.

    /coat


  • Options
    #423
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    Overheal wrote: »
    Did I say Hate? No. I did not. I am simply Nay.

    Well then when someone is talking about those that do hate him, they are not talking about you.
    Overheal wrote: »
    I voted for him and I still don't like him. That doesnt make me a Rightie.

    Who said it did? What I said was that those who do actually hate Obama (as distinguished from those who disagree with him or don't like him for some rational reason) are from the far right (exclusively, AFAIK).

    What is controversial about that? It doesn't mean that (a) if you don't like him you are therefore right wing, or (b) there aren't plenty of rational reasons to disagree with him/dislike him.

    Which provides a segue back onto topic. There's a tendency to take any justified criticism of outlandish, hateful attacks on BHO as an unjustified criticism of all conservatives or the entire GOP or anyone at all who disagrees with him. The haters are just a small noisy minority that is sensationalized by the media (because it's entertaining, I suppose). Nobody would care much about them if the "mainstream" majority of the party were functioning. Remember back in the good old days when mainstream politicians disassociated themselves from the fringe?

    imokyrok mentioned Joe Wilson -- he did the GOP no favors with his outburst. Old-school pol John McCain knows it and condemned him right away. Others have too now.


  • Options
    #424
    transylman
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭transylman


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    imokyrok mentioned Joe Wilson -- he did the GOP no favors with his outburst. Old-school pol John McCain knows it and condemned him right away.

    He then tried to call Obama to apologize personally, but ended up talking with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel instead.

    Would love to have heard that conversation.


  • Options
    #425
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Húrin wrote: »
    Pure ideological nonsense.

    I'm guessing you don't believe in Personal Responsibility then.

    And btw Not that its any of your business I was born and lived most of my life in NY and have only lived in Kilkenny for the last 4 years.


  • Options
    #426
    bobbyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    I'm guessing you don't believe in Personal Responsibility then.

    And btw Not that its any of your business I was born and lived most of my life in NY and have only lived in Kilkenny for the last 4 years.

    Most people don't believe in absolutes. Like just cos you think there should be a public option does not mean that one does not believe in personal responsibility.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    bobbyjoe wrote: »
    Most people don't believe in absolutes. Like just cos you think there should be a public option does not mean that one does not believe in personal responsibility.

    The Govt should be in as little as possible. Look at what they are currently running [Medicare,Medicaid, Amtrack and the Post Office] they are either bankrupt, going bankrupt or operating at heavy losses [and Obama blundered when he compared his health care plan to the Post Office. That was comforting. :rolleyes:]

    Even if passed this year the Health Care won't go into effect until 2013 [though the 5% tax increase to cover it will go into effect Jan 1, 2010]


  • Options
    #428
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    The Govt should be in as little as possible. Look at what they are currently running [Medicare,Medicaid, Amtrack and the Post Office] they are either bankrupt, going bankrupt or operating at heavy losses [and Obama blundered when he compared his health care plan to the Post Office. That was comforting. :rolleyes:]

    Even if passed this year the Health Care won't go into effect until 2013 [though the 5% tax increase to cover it will go into effect Jan 1, 2010]


    no no, you're talking about the banks and the car industry that "are either bankrupt, going bankrupt or operating at heavy losses"

    I hear taxes are much higher in other 2nd world democracies

    I'd pitch a nickle for the future


  • Options
    #429
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Matt Holck wrote: »
    no no, you're talking about the banks and the car industry that "are either bankrupt, going bankrupt or operating at heavy losses"

    Either you are being sarcastic or have no idea what's going on.


  • Options
    #430
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    I understand that banks and car industrues have been receiving bail out money


  • Options
    #431
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Matt Holck wrote: »
    I understand that banks and car industrues have been receiving bail out money

    What does that have to do with anything related to the possible Healthcare program?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    There is doubt about whether health care could be handled better by the public people or private industry.

    Private industry has been touted as a more effective way to provide goods on the open market.

    Recently, the bail outs have called the efficiency of private industry into question.

    People are beginning to believe that perhaps public government systems deserve consideration as a means of providing health care.


  • Options
    #433
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Matt Holck wrote: »
    There is doubt about whether health care could be handled better by the public people or private industry.

    Private industry has been touted as a more effective way to provide goods on the open market.

    Recently, the bail outs have called the efficiency of private industry into question.

    People are beginning to believe that perhaps public government systems deserve consideration as a means of providing health care.

    Considering Social Security might be history in another decade and then the whole failure of everything else the Govt seems to run only a fool would want the Govt to have total control of the Health Industry. To believe "They'll get this one right." is a huge leap of faith. And obviously most people aren't going to make that leap.


  • Options
    #434
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    My country has not been invaded
    I have received a good education
    I have protected rights and live
    I am very happy with the government to that end


  • Options
    #435
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    Good point that summarizes one side of the debate on this thread.

    Not sure what "Republican 47%" you are referring to? Clarify?

    If you are referring to the November 2008 presidential election results of the number of voters that voted for Obama (53%) and McCain (46%), this McCain 46% (or your "47%") were not all "Republicans," but those that voted for McCain from all parties, including Democrats, Republicans, other parties, and Independents. This is an important distinction to make, because your consensus statement seems to imply that those that voted for McCain were "Republicans" or favour the "Republican" agenda of today?
    I'm aware that not all people who voted for McCain are card-carrying Republicans. However for the purpose of this discussion - about a plan that Obama said he wanted to enact during the election campaign - it seemed appropriate enough. However I might as well have said that the Republican party has no interest in compromise. They appear to be absolutists.
    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    I'm guessing you don't believe in Personal Responsibility then.
    Yes, that's it. And until you can say that you made your own car, house, and everything else you use, neither do you by the "logic" you're applying to me.


  • Options
    #436
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Húrin wrote: »
    Yes, that's it. And until you can say that you made your own car, house, and everything else you use, neither do you by the "logic" you're applying to me.

    :rolleyes: Good to know its still going completely over your head.


  • Options
    #437
    getcover
    Registered Users Posts: 264 ✭✭getcover


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    The Govt should be in as little as possible. Look at what they are currently running [Medicare,Medicaid, Amtrack and the Post Office] they are either bankrupt, going bankrupt or operating at heavy losses [and Obama blundered when he compared his health care plan to the Post Office. That was comforting. :rolleyes:]

    Even if passed this year the Health Care won't go into effect until 2013 [though the 5% tax increase to cover it will go into effect Jan 1, 2010]
    Why this abhorrence for the Government getting involved?
    I take you believe all the Banks/Savings and Loans etc. who were in trouble should simply have been allowed to fold?

    What role do you believe should Government play?


  • Options
    #438
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,319 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    getcover wrote: »
    Why this abhorrence for the Government getting involved?
    I take you believe all the Banks/Savings and Loans etc. who were in trouble should simply have been allowed to fold?
    Aside from FDIC insured deposits? Hell yes. Thats the way the system was designed to fail, in the event of such a failure, as I understand it.
    What role do you believe should Government play?
    A Regulator, not a player. Setting laws to prevent insurors from canceling coverage while you are ill? Fantastic! Setting up a government run program? Why, when we have plenty of Private options (hundreds in fact)

    It was different in Ireland say. When no private company had the capital or the interest to operate the Utilities sector, the government still had/has to rely on ESB. Similar mucksavagery with Aer Lingus - but i am so lost on that AL issue, its quite the cluster****.


  • Options
    #439
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    :rolleyes: Good to know its still going completely over your head.


    So are you just here to troll? OR actually address anyone's points?


  • Options
    #440
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    getcover wrote: »
    Why this abhorrence for the Government getting involved?

    Because they have the reverse Midas touch where everything they get their hands on turns to ****. Social Security can be gone in a few years, Medicare and Medicaid are losing money and the less said about the Post Office and Amtrack the better.
    I take you believe all the Banks/Savings and Loans etc. who were in trouble should simply have been allowed to fold?
    If they gave out loans and mortgages to people they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back then Yes those banks should have been allowed to go under. I and every other US tax payer shouldn't have to pay for anybody else's loans, mortgages or credit cards.
    What role do you believe should Government play?

    Very little. Just enough to keep the Country going efficiently. I don't want them running my life to the exact minute and telling me when I can and can't go to the bathroom.

    Hurin wrote:


    So are you just here to troll? OR actually address anyone's points?


    I have addressed the points. Its not my fault its not to your liking. And accusing people of beings trolls or whatever will not make you any more credible. It just makes you what you are trying to accuse me of.


  • Options
    #441
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,319 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Private industry has been touted as a more effective way to provide goods on the open market.
    The problem is its definitely Not an Open market. There are 1300 Health Insurance Providers in the United States. I believe the number if you live in California that you actually are allowed access to, is 6. Current Healthcare Law restricts you from getting insurance from out of state. And what the Protesters in Washington are saying, as one of their main points, is that this restriction needs to be lifted to vastly improve Competition in the insurance industry and drive prices down.

    Why was that restriction put there in the first place? I'm guessing, to help prop up an infant Insurance Market, which is nowhere near infancy today, and its time to lift the bubble wrap off it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Húrin wrote: »
    So are you just here to troll? OR actually address anyone's points?

    Forum Charter:
    Allegations of trollery will not be accepted in-thread - they will be viewed as simply another form of personal attack, and dealt with accordingly. If you believe someone is trolling, and object, then report them as per "Reporting & Moderation above.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #443
    getcover
    Registered Users Posts: 264 ✭✭getcover


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Because they have the reverse Midas touch where everything they get their hands on turns to ****. Social Security can be gone in a few years, Medicare and Medicaid are losing money and the less said about the Post Office and Amtrack the better.
    But you can level that charge any many private Companies - Enron, Lehman Bros for instance. You come across as completely against Government involvement, but there is a middle ground, I get the impression a lot of Americans are knee-jerk anti-Government involvement, without really being able to explain why.
    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    If they gave out loans and mortgages to people they knew wouldn't be able to pay it back then Yes those banks should have been allowed to go under. I and every other US tax payer shouldn't have to pay for anybody else's loans, mortgages or credit cards.
    So do you think that the Government should play a rle in housing those who can't get a mortgage? Where should those people live?

    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Very little. Just enough to keep the Country going efficiently. I don't want them running my life to the exact minute and telling me when I can and can't go to the bathroom.
    Since when does the US Government tell people when to go to the bathroom?
    Again, this is just a nothing comment, it doesn't in anyway explain your stance.


  • Options
    #444
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    getcover wrote: »
    But you can level that charge any many private Companies - Enron, Lehman Bros for instance. You come across as completely against Government involvement, but there is a middle ground, I get the impression a lot of Americans are knee-jerk anti-Government involvement, without really being able to explain why.

    When Private Companies waste money they either go out of business or the person over seeing the finances gets fired.Not With Govt they waste tons of money and just jack up our taxes. Their is no accountability with the Govt.
    So do you think that the Government should play a rle in housing those who can't get a mortgage? Where should those people live?

    No they should not. Its not anybody elses fault if someone is living way beyond their means. They can either a) get a mortgage for a house they can afford or b) go live in an apartment until they can afford the down payment. I am not responsible to put a roof over someone elses head.


    Since when does the US Government tell people when to go to the bathroom?
    Again, this is just a nothing comment, it doesn't in anyway explain your stance.

    A bit of an exaggeration by my part. And I have explained my stance very clearly. Its not my fault if you or other posters cannot accept it.


  • Options
    #445
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,319 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Enron, Lehman Bros for instance.

    Wasn't Enron's CEO Dick Cheney at some point? And wasn't Lehman brought down by the Subprime Mortage foul-up? Oh and Walmart is taking over the country, probably in no small part to efforts of one of its former chairwomen.

    The government gets involved in Private Enterprise too much.


  • Options
    #446
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Very little. Just enough to keep the Country going efficiently. I don't want them running my life to the exact minute and telling me when I can and can't go to the bathroom.

    Funny you say that because I think that would be great and so do the rest of us who disagree with you. Would you have democracy be a choice between some sort of ultra-laissez faire capitalism, and something resembling the GDR?
    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    I have addressed the points. Its not my fault its not to your liking. And accusing people of beings trolls or whatever will not make you any more credible. It just makes you what you are trying to accuse me of.

    You may have addressed other peoples' points but you didn't address mine. If you are arguing against too many people, it would be better to not reply to me at all than to make a blunt and rude reply that doesn't address my points.


  • Options
    #447
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Overheal wrote: »
    The government gets involved in Private Enterprise too much.

    For sure; any time you hear the words "free market" from the top you can be sure there are massive handouts to big business going on.

    Free market capitalism, as an ideology, is about as realistic a choice for this civilisation as anarcho-communism.


  • Options
    #448
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Húrin wrote: »
    Funny you say that because I think that would be great and so do the rest of us who disagree with you.

    I believe you only get out of life what you put into it. It was the same at school and at work. You work hard you go places. You want to be lazy don't be surprised when you end up with nothing.
    You may have addressed other peoples' points but you didn't address mine. If you are arguing against too many people, it would be better to not reply to me at all than to make a blunt and rude reply that doesn't address my points.

    Your points have been the same as other peoples on here. I am blunt. I get to the point. I don't sugar coat. In other words I don't bull****. I will not apologize for it. That's how I am. If you don't like my posting style then you might want to second guess next time you want to press the reply button to my posts.


  • Options
    #449
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,258 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Overheal wrote: »
    Wasn't Enron's CEO Dick Cheney at some point?
    No. Most of his career was in Republican politics. His major private sector for-profit executive position was held "From 1995 until 2000, he served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton..." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

    "Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 through August 2000. The company's KBR subsidiary is the main government contractor working to restore Iraq's oil industry in an open-ended contract that was awarded without competitive bidding." Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

    Former Halliburton CEO administration awards largest oil industry contract in war destroyed Iraq to Halliburton without going out to competitive bid? Geeeeeeee, I was under the impression that most government contracts, especially one that was for billions of US tax dollars, would be competitive? "Open-ended" too? Spend, spend, spend! Wow! And all this time I thought the Republicans were for free market competition too?

    Don't pull that Halliburton was the only US corporation that was qualified crap! I can provide a list of Fortune 500 corporations that were just a capable as Halliburton to rebuild Iraq's oil fields; US corporations that were as large as Halliburton and just as experienced in the oil construction industry (but didn't have their former CEO as the current US Vice President).

    Of course, the Bush administration expected the public to accept that it was mere coincidence that such a massive contract was awarded to Cheney's former employer, the one he just left as CEO? Or that Halliburton was the only US corporation with the capabilities to handle rebuilding Iraq's oil fields? (And if you believe that, I have a flying pig to sell you. Just specify whether you want it with or without lipstick when placing your order with Bad B!ue)






    **Side note: When looking over Cheney's biography, I did find it amusing that he too (as GW Bush) was a poor performing student at Yale, eventually dropping out (Bush got "average" grades and Cheney failed). Both also figured out how to avoid service in Vietnam, with heroic top gun GW Bush in the National Guard for one year defending the State of Texas against the State of Oklahoma (when he was sober), and Cheney getting several college deferments from military duty, while "coward" Kerry was wounded in Vietnam combat, admitted to hospital for 3 Purple Hearts. Both Cheney and GW Bush had problems with alcohol too, with Cheney getting arrested for drunk driving while young. They were made for each other!


  • Options
    #450
    bobbyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    I believe you only get out of life what you put into it. It was the same at school and at work. You work hard you go places. You want to be lazy don't be surprised when you end up with nothing.



    By that logic all poor people or those sick with no insurance deserve it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    bobbyjoe wrote: »
    By that logic all poor people or those sick with no insurance deserve it?

    If you don't want to work hard then that is your problem. If you want to watch TV eat junk food all day why should I pay for hospital bills when your heart fails? If someone wants to smoke XX packs of cigarettes a day why should I pay their hospital bills when their lungs fails? If someone wants to spend one end of the day to the other in a bar drinking beer why should I pay for their hospital bills when their liver fails?

    Humanitarianism can and should only go so far. At the end of the day you have to help yourself. Your existance does not mean I'm obligated to pay for your health insurance.


Advertisement