quote:

---

RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle [regarding his reaction to Farrakhan's stated support for the black guy, which has fucking nothing to do with anything]?

CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.

OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.

[applause]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
I would say that socialism makes a whole lot more sense when you come close to retirement and you realize the repercussions of all the talk of "rugged individualism" and all that other poop.

---

quote:

---

Maybe when the Boomers start running into serious trouble, they will actually get something going here.

---

quote:

---

At the very least, he could get our previous friends to stop hating us, because as much as Dubya doesn't want to admit it, we need "Old Europe" and other friends now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
the ultimate goal [of a government] is providing necessary services for people

---

?
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 05-15-2008, 05:02 AM:
 
I guess if you're a libertarian, the only purpose of a government is to run the police and the military (roads and utilities be damned!), but civilized societies try to keep the old people off the streets.

It's kind of interesting seeing the coverage of the Chinese earthquake. I realize it's a larger catastrophe than New Orleans, but they sent in 100,000 troops and they're paratrooping in help to remote villages.

Probably because no black people lived there.
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 05-15-2008, 02:59 PM:
 
A friend of a friend is out in China on business right now dealing with that shit. He was inside a building right in the thick of it, but they quickly evacuated and made it out okay. Their hotel (~1 hr away) wouldn't let them back in because something-something aftershock tremors, and it's evidently fucking impossible to get a flight out of China at the moment. Hope they pull through okay.

I am not very good at politics because I think taxes are gay, but I also think European countries are pretty cool because they have nice things that I want here that came from government programs. The common trend appears to be that they have to pay a shitload in taxes, but if the end result is a country that isn't a colossal piece of shit, I think I could learn to be okay with that.

I hear a lot of back-and-forth whining re: government-subbed health care from local pals, and I'm having a hard time formulating an opinion one way or the other. The missus is concerned that it will somehow eventually lead to the prominence of shitty quality medical care, since government-subsidized anything always kinda sucks in the interest of being massively available and as cheap as possible. I have some small business stuff on the side where I use a shitload of USPS: it's cheap to send small packages through them, but they offer crappy tracking, they lose or misplace parcels with annoying frequency, and they just generally kinda suck to deal with in comparison to UPS/FedEx (who are prohibitively expensive for my purposes). It's jarring to think about this kind of philosophy/approach being applied to medical care, where the highest quality equipment and best/brightest physicians are of huge importance.

On the other hand, I recently had multi-thousand-dollar wrist surgery courtesy of a random snowboarding accident, so that kinda sucked. If you'd asked me about health care even an hour prior to that, I probably would have said "hey fuck off, I'm healthy and paying for other stupid sick people to get better is for commies."

All told, I am a big Barack lover, and I think it would be a travesty if we missed out on giving him a chance in favor of either of the two fucknosed bobblehead alternatives. The only political issues I can be bothered to really care about are the state of our telecom infrastructure and the preservation of net neutrality: the black guy is the only one that's even got them on the radar.
 

---

Posted by ieR2 (Member # 3934) on 05-16-2008, 12:30 AM:
 
lul, serious topic.

Here SC, let me buy you a new pair of briefs to match your interests:

 

---

Posted by mr k mouth (Member # 802) on 05-16-2008, 04:13 AM:
 
Those are boxers.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 05-16-2008, 05:10 AM:
 
I think universal health care would end up very similar to the USPS situation. In the general case, everyone would be covered and would receive decent, but not exemplary, service.

I can't remember the last time I sent something through the USPS that didn't make it, although the tracking does indeed suck. I used to use Priority Mail pretty heavily and never ran into a case where the package didn't arrive or arrived late.

The government is great at working out how to do the easy stuff efficiently and cheaply.

However, if you have an oddly-shaped package or something extremely fragile, there are probably going to be problems. I imagine a similar thing in health care. 99% of things would be handled satisfactorily and we might actually be able to get more preventative care going to save money on clusterfucks down the road.

But in cases where something big like a heart transplant is necessary, the new system would, in aggregate, probably be worse than it is now (for those who actually currently have care). Rich people would turn to a private solution like FedEx but all people would have the opportunity to get some service, which is better than things are now. People wouldn't have to fly to India to get common surgeries.

It'd still be America and the wealthy will always have extra opportunities.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 05-18-2008, 10:26 AM:
 
I finally got around to watching a Frontline on my TiVo from last month. They look at the successes and problems of five other countries with universal health care.

The one thing that's clear is that there are many systems, but ours is the pretty much the worst in the free world.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 05-19-2008, 03:57 PM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:

The one thing that's clear is that there are many systems, but ours is the pretty much the worst in the free world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:

Of course, if you're a Republican, you'll never be convinced because of your "values".

---

my personal, evil-republican belief system:

-provide for others welfare via own accord, not a government's mandate.
-Personal responsibility
-self reliance and a belief system that recognizes "shit happens" and it can suck (& no one but my mommy's responsibility to make it feel ok).
-The less government, generally the better

And if you're a Demoscrat you'll never be convinced because

The system is fucked up.

how is it fucked?

just look at it.

I don't think the system is fucked

not yet maybe, just wait though. TV (realistic world view as it affects me and you personally) states there is a 1/400 chance you will be bankrupt this yeer (Not of course taking into any account personal responsibility of maintaining your personal health, safety or financial planning in lieu of accidents happening but still that's messed up).

I'll take my chances tyvm. did you get fucked over?

yes and it hurts Plz pay for my operation to get unfucked over. Then everything will be square and I will be happy and not ax you for help (unless something else bad ever happens again then I reserve right to make it sound like I am being shorted). Also give more of your money to support people that do not have it as well as the future children they will someday have. That will make them un poor and increase their well being. The circle of life means it will come back to everyone in turn. The world will gradually become better and better and bad things will go away (due to the heightened effort we put into preventing bad things). Can I have a dollar?

why?

because you have 5 you heartless monster >:|

: (

[ 05-20-2008, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: 10,000Lb.Snorlax ]
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 05-20-2008, 04:14 PM:
 
10K: If you are going to compare health care systems don't you think a better way would be to judge the number of people treated/helped, availability and other things besides the cost?

Yes, and they did that. People have higher life expectancies in the countries they examined, although there are certainly other factors involved. But given that we spend so much more on our system than other countries do, you'd at least expect us to rank a little higher.

People are also satisfied with their care, more so than in this country, which is a more important metric.

Also in terms of efficiency Kurt Loder seems to directly refute your claim about over seas health care efficiency with his France example.

Well, nice to know that Kurt Loder is your new god, but the Frontline show addresses these issues as well. Most of the health care systems they looked at were in debt, but people also paid significantly less than we do. Even if getting out of debt required doubling the cost, they'd still be paying less than we do.

Additionally, the requirement to keep costs down has resulted in innovation and streamlined paperwork, leading to superior efficiency (which there is currently no motivation to accomplish here).

as for the date line story on health care. Sorry if I don't find a news magazine show whose funding is dependent on ratings as an unbiased, valid, unquestionable source of information.

1. Frontline not Dateline, which is important because, 2. PBS not NBC (ie, no advertisers to appease), and 3. thanks for not even checking out the data which conflicts with your worldview, even though I read your shitty Loder article.

Your little play with the fictional Democrat in the room was cute, but irrelevant. I wasn't making any judgments, just saying that socialized medicine is antithetical to the Republican philosophy, so there's no way you'd agree with the principle.

You might have looked at the data and come to a belief that the system is pragmatically better even if it violates your sense of rugged individualism, and it makes for a higher quality of life, while still allowing you the ability to spend too much money for care if that's what you really want.

But that thing you did was OK too.
 

---

Posted by Dragonite21 (Member # 475) on 05-21-2008, 07:09 AM:
 
10K do you also not believe that education should be free and universal? Emergency services?
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 05-21-2008, 01:05 PM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonite21:
10K do you also not believe that education should be free and universal? Emergency services?

---

quote:

---

You know what I mean

---

quote:

---

Can they get access to really basic treatment? Or do you just let them die?[/QB]

---

no hospital will ever turn down someone for emergency treatment on account of inability to pay. ever.

but wait! you still get billed for it! So even if I can't afford the life saving surgery the hospital gives me, I am still responsible to pay the bill! Sucks more than death huh??

people are generally pissed that after their life is saved they have to pay a lot of money for the services. After all, they assumedly question, how on earth could life saving emergency surgery cost more than a brand new luxury vehicle (which is worth the cost)?

every year, Death kills people in America; however, rest assured billions of dollars are spent here in the hope to someday cure this malignant, unnatural disease
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 05-23-2008, 02:29 PM:
 
10K: I get my health insurance via work.

Almost everyone does. Are you actually paying for it or do they pick up the tab?

If they do, then I can at least respect your God-given Republican right to crow about screwing over the vast majority of the population to benefit an elite few. Although, think how much your company would save if they only had to pay half as much for your insurance.

In fact I would be paying MORE for health insurance because I would be covering your ass and other strangers via taxes.

This is where you're wrong, because you're not paying attention. The price goes down for everyone. I know it just kills you that would be helping others, but you'd do it at no cost to yourself. I know this is not something care about, but you ought to understand that you're only doing it out of spite.

...so then is my motivation for paying for other people's coverage stemming from an appeal to pity on behalf of the common man that I ought feed, clothe and pay for his triple bypass?

No, it ought to be to help yourself (given that you will not be in your current situation for your entire life). Or at least help others at no cost to yourself. Appealing to a Republican's sense of compassion would be foolish.

no hospital will ever turn down someone for emergency treatment on account of inability to pay.

The number of hospital visits could be drastically reduced with preventative care, and it would cost everyone less money if we spent a little money up front to avoid catastrophic events later. Whenever the poor get emergency services they can't pay for, people who buy insurance end up paying for them anyway. Given that that's inevitable, we might as well try to minimize those costs (although this has the outrageous side effect of helping others, and therefore you must oppose it).

people are generally pissed that after their life is saved they have to pay a lot of money for the services.

If you make $30K a year and something beyond your control happens to you, and suddenly you're staring at $20K in hospital bills...you're not "pissed", you're bankrupt. Obviously someone has to pay, but it's hilarious that you are willing to look down your nose at these people, simply because you caught a good break when you were born.

I think Thrax hit the nail on the head:

quote:

---

so basically you're a boring, uninteresting person who thinks being rich and constantly mentioning his rich-people toys is an acceptable substitute for being interesting. ... you are pretty much a kind of sentient cancer that the rest of the world has to put up with.

---

quote:

---

If you make $30K a year and something beyond your control happens to you, and suddenly you're staring at $20K in hospital bills...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
...so then is my motivation for paying for other people's coverage stemming from an appeal to pity on behalf of the common man that I ought feed, clothe and pay for his triple bypass? :/

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.K:
Obviously someone has to pay

---

K: "someone = everyone"
me: "someone = person who had the surgery"
K:

quote:

---

The number of hospital visits could be drastically reduced with preventative care, and it would cost everyone less money if we spent a little money up front to avoid catastrophic events later.

---

quote:

---

simply because you caught a good break when you were born.

---

quote:

---

"you're a boring, uninteresting person who thinks being rich and constantly mentioning his rich-people toys is an acceptable substitute for being interesting. ... you are pretty much a kind of sentient cancer that the rest of the world has to put up with."

---

per aspera ad hominem! (if I may coin a phrase)

and look it's even in Latin! The fitting choice of a conservative, rugged individualist. Being a Classics major just felt useful
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 05-23-2008, 06:21 PM:
 
The point you continue to ignore is that everyone benefits from a more streamlined system, including you.

I accept not wanting to help others at some cost to you as a selfish but logical position, but preventing everyone (including yourself) from having a better time of things because some freeloading action that has no effect on you will take place is inexplicable in any context except spite, or perhaps ignorance.

10K: I'm wondering why you want me to pay for those who do not take care of themselves due to either ignorance or apathy.

Because it saves you money and results in better service for you. The side effect is that others have a nicer life and our society becomes more civilized, but you can ignore that stuff and still reap the benefits (unless you place a higher value in righteous anger than quality of service or cost).
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 05-25-2008, 03:01 PM:
 
I have no income and the state pays my medical and dental bills.

e: The state also gives me food.

[ 05-25-2008, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: MewtwoSama ]
 

---

Posted by ieR2 (Member # 3934) on 05-25-2008, 05:45 PM:
 
blah blah blah, boring guys. Let's summon Jumpman already.

EARTH!
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 05-27-2008, 10:12 AM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
The point you continue to ignore is that everyone benefits from a more streamlined system, including you.

---

quote:

---

The Boomers are largely complicit, as a whole, in impoverishing my generation and they can fuck off for all I care.

...Also I realise it's paradoxical to support universal healthcare but not old people but...you know, old people suck.

---

quote:

---

Also the world they instituted was accepted - grudingly, in some cases, I think, but still accepted - by GenXers like 10K who, as a result, are an astonishingly self-interested bunch of narcissists, with no real idea about the mechanics of society. I mean, Libertarianism was fine when we all lived in hamlets or whatever, but in the context of an industrial or postindustrial society where most of the human population in the West live in urban conurbations?

---

actually the majority of US population (subject of this thread) resides *outside* of large cities.

regardless you need to present why altruism is required by modern society. (Would also be nice if you can explain why unselfish devotion to old people is *not* required).

finally you described some people as "astonishingly self-interested". What is astonishing about being self-interested?

[ 06-02-2008, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: 10,000Lb.Snorlax ]
 

---

Posted by Dragonite21 (Member # 475) on 06-03-2008, 09:36 AM:
 
10k: so you are all for socialized health care but don't think it should cover old people

I don't think I said that. I was thinking more about pensions, and their complaints about the increase in energy/fuel prices (which is a symptom of the energy crisis at large, and therefore not something that anyone can do much about).

actually the majority of US population (subject of this thread) resides *outside* of large cities.

I did not say 'large cities', the concept of what constitutes a 'large city' being subject to flux; I said 'urban area'.

regardless you need to present why altruism is required by modern society.

If by 'required' you mean 'what is the economic benefit?', I did.

finally you described some people as "astonishingly self-interested". What is astonishing about being self-interested?

Fair point, I suppose.
 

---

Posted by White Cat (Member # 42) on 06-04-2008, 01:14 AM:
 
Your long national nightmare is over.


 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 06-04-2008, 02:45 AM:
 
What's astonishing (well, not really) is the way 10K flees from any interesting point of discussion or data and leaps on any pointless detail or personal attack with such relish. I'm a little embarrassed by how long it took me to notice I was being griefed.

Also I never thought I'd read anything of value from Cracked, which was always Mad magazine's shitty inbred second cousin. And Mad was never good either. I knew the intarweb was for something.

Also also I have a larger version of that picture of the monkey riding a dog and I was going to make it the Karp Park image before I got so completely bored with the place that I even stopped doing simple maintenance.

Also also also the only foreseeable thing that Obama could to do make me not vote for him would be to make Hillary VP. This is his first big test in my eyes. He's said most of the right things so far (whereas Hillary pointed out how great it would be if someone would just murder the negro and give her the friggin' biscuit already).

Also also also also it's funny that Hillary keeps saying she's going on. The press should have started ignoring her months ago. Once you lose the game, it doesn't matter whether you concede defeat or not. It's not like you have to wait for the coaches to shake hands before a loss is official. You don't lose the Super Bowl and then have a press conference discussing where your season is moving on from here and the important decisions you still have to make.

The media is worthless.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 06-04-2008, 11:39 AM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
[QB]What's astonishing (well, not really) is the way 10K flees from any interesting point of discussion or data and leaps on any pointless detail or personal attack with such relish. I'm a little embarrassed by how long it took me to notice I was being griefed.

---

bait ?

also what's your idea of interesting converstaion? drag's sweeping, vague notion that Gen Xers + old people == terrible state of world today doesn't really warrant comment, nor does "no srsly - this dateline article is really good". It was interesting - it didn't move me believe we need to adopt a socialized health care system (just like MTV's article didn't unconvince you of the same) so N/A.

What interests me surprisingly are the things you have passed over instead choosing passive aggressive cold reading to present resentment (like the legality/ethics of tobacco, Carl's Jr. 4th of July Burger in a publicly funded health care system).

quote:

---

Also also also also it's funny that Hillary keeps saying she's going on. Once you lose the game, it doesn't matter whether you concede defeat or not. It's not like you have to wait for the coaches to shake hands before a loss is official. You don't lose the Super Bowl and then have a press conference discussing where your season is moving on from here and the important decisions you still have to make.

---

I know - because when things get hard - just give up, right? hopefully lolbama has learned this lesson if he becomes president. If this is the model behavior you want people to follow no wonder you are all for a social welfare system (we'd need it)

a guy here at work said that if Hillary was a Republican she would have won the party nomination a long time ago based on how they determine majority (is that true?). But yeah she should have watched the youtube video's featuring Black Eyed Pea Will-I-Am (YES WE CAN) and known she was done for. Screw that Mrs. Smith goes to Washington crap.

quote:

---

The press should have started ignoring her months ago ... The media is worthless.

---

do you just throw shit against a wall and hope that some sticks? "media is worthless" from the guy that says "Nightline fixt healthcares"...

a great thing if Obama gets elected is that Sharpton, Jackson and anyone else that feeds off of social divisions between the races will not have a leg to stand on (with a Black President elected). That might make Obama's glib policy remarks, wife, and gross 6th grade motivational rhetoric endurable

also looking forward to less type cast comedy stand up where black guys play the race card for an "YOU KNOW YALL HATE BLACK FOLK" punch line. Can Lolbama add that to his fat platform to?
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 06-04-2008, 03:53 PM:
 
10K: also what's your idea of interesting converstaion?

Well, you momentarily tricked me into thinking you wanted to talk about Obama or health care, but really you just want to shoot the shit about the most appallingly dull superficialities.

I guess I'm spoiled. I'm just not used to all these empty carbs in my conversation. I thought we were gonna do Face the Nation, not Entertainment Tonight. I'm sure you and your friends think you're real deep, but I'm just not interested in what Shia LaBeouf is up to.

I know - because when things get hard - just give up, right?

You can do better than that. At least pretend to defend some plausible position someone might actually have.

[ 06-04-2008, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 

---

Posted by Dragonite21 (Member # 475) on 06-05-2008, 03:59 PM:
 
10K: also what's your idea of interesting converstaion? drag's sweeping, vague notion that Gen Xers + old people == terrible state of world today doesn't really warrant comment

Hm. Perhaps. I've had exams & consequently a fried brain, and parts of my posts are perhaps not the greatest things ever written.

But this is rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You're making some pretty sweeping statements yourself; I mean, what's up with 'Big Gulp Lady'? I don't who she is (cultural reference of some sort?), but am going to assume it's a generic overweight character, whose self-inflicted obesity you use as a good reason not to support universal health care. This ignores the fact that her problems may not be of her own doing, or otherwise could potentially have been kept in check by regular prevantative diagnostics and treatment, which she may be unable to afford under the current system.

Conversely, you might have, say, a single, working mother with two kids who is at the limits of her spending ability and is thus unable (despite being both responsible and hard-working) to spare money for either health insurance or treatment as needed. There does seem, after all, to be a correlation - not exact, but identifiable - between poorer states and the percentage of people who remain uninsured.

My hypothetical situation can no more be taken for the norm than yours, of course, but then, that was the point of the article on Cracked I linked to a couple of posts back. Simply boiling every person who might use universal health care down to whichever bogeyman (or martyr, in my case) you want to use to make your point is hardly a detached and rational way to criticise policy.

The way in which any of this benefits you is more abstract. You could make a comparison with the fire service; it's better to have firemen put out all houses which catch fire, than just the ones which are insured. This is because, even though your own house might be insured, your neighbour's might not, and if it catches fire then it will, of course, affect yours. The same point can be made for healthcare. As for an obligation to the fellow citizens in your country...I know an appeal to altruism probably isn't worth it; when you say stuff like

quote:

---

every year, Death kills people in America; however, rest assured billions of dollars are spent here in the hope to someday cure this malignant, unnatural disease

---

then I think we've established what sort of person you are. But consider whether you want to be that sort of person.

I know - because when things get hard - just give up, right? hopefully lolbama has learned this lesson if he becomes president. If this is the model behavior you want people to follow no wonder you are all for a social welfare system (we'd need it)

That's missing the point, which was that Clinton couldn't catch up to Obama & by staying in the race was exacerbating splits in the Democratic Party. Not everything in life warrants a gun-slinging battle to the bitter end of any little thing, you know, especially when the consequences of doing so will be entirely negative.

[ 01-01-2009, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Dragonite21 ]
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 06-05-2008, 08:54 PM:
 
The problem is that 10K doesn't really want to talk about policy or reality. His arguments against universal health care boil down to hypothetical anecdotal situations which, if he thought about them a little bit, he'd realize are already a part of the system he supports.

He could have actually made the reasonable argument that I wanted Hillary to drop out, yet supported Nader, which would have forced me to think a little bit about my position. But, he didn't go that route, so instead I thought about it on my own.

Nader wasn't running for personal political gain, he was running to inject ideas into the public campaign. Hillary's policies are virtually identical to Obama's, and she never talks about them anyway. Her constantly changing message has always been about herself (ready on Day One, ready to take late night phone calls, I'm a doer, I'm a fighter, etc.) whereas Obama's primary message has always been simple, but substantive: change. It's an actual reason to vote for him, not just "vote for me because I would like you to vote for me".

The truth is, she wasn't fighting for anything other than herself.

On the other hand, it's surprising how effective "vote for me because I have a vagina" is. I have a friend who is a die hard Hillary supporter, despite knowing absolutely nothing about anything she has done in the past, any of her policies, or anything she has ever said. She does know that she allegedly has a vagina, and that's enough.

I suppose it's true that many blacks voted for Obama on similar grounds, but the Clintons sort of helped that along by making an endless series of baffling racist remarks.

Anyway, once it became impossible for her to win, all she was doing was giving the media an excuse to talk about her, and not actual news, which is Hillary's overriding goal. One day after Obama's historic victory, Hillary was the top story on all the news pages.

My beef with the media is that they love the horse race so much, they make up stuff like "momentum", which pretty much doesn't exist. Months before all of the major contests, you could have easily predicted all the winners (and people did). It was no surprise that Obama swept 11 races in a row, and he wasn't gaining momentum, he was simply winning contests that demographically favored him and everyone knew he was going to win.

Everyone also knew Hillary was going to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia and she didn't gain any momentum by winning states when she was already mathematically eliminated.

The momentum thing bothers me more than even the nonsense about flag pins, because it's a complete fabrication on the part of the media.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 06-06-2008, 02:35 PM:
 

quote:

---

This ignores the fact that her [Big Gulp Lady's] problems may not be of her own doing [ ], or otherwise could potentially have been kept in check by regular prevantative diagnostics and treatment, which she may be unable to afford under the current system.

---

quote:

---

My hypothetical situation can no more be taken for the norm than yours, of course, but then, that was the point of the article on Cracked I linked to a couple of posts back. Simply boiling every person who might use universal health care down to whichever bogeyman (or martyr, in my case) you want to use to make your point is hardly a detached and rational way to criticise policy.

---

quote:

---

The way in which any of this benefits you is more abstract. You could make a comparison with the fire service; it's better to have firemen put out all houses which catch fire, than just the ones which are insured. This is because, even though your own house might be insured, your neighbour's might not, and if it catches fire then it will, of course, affect yours. The same point can be made for healthcare.

---

quote:

---

As for an obligation to the fellow citizens in your country...I know an appeal to altruism probably isn't worth it..then I think we've established what sort of person you are. But consider whether you want to be that sort of person.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, the guy who wrote it is basically one of the best people I've come across on the internet (he's written a bunch of excellent articles; (and a serious Christian) who can realistically assess why universal health care is necessary,

Amazing, right?

---

I really liked that thread on universal health care that you linked but perhaps for different reasons; the concerns presented critically addressing the idea of what a UHC system would manifest as were a great read. While the OP's thoughts didn't particularly impress me, I didn't see a lot of strawmans or sweeping generalizations touted by the people discussing the topic. a lot of public discussion on pros/cons. good read and thanks for sharing

The monkey bubble article was pretty meh. It could have been edited to better state its explanation that humans are generally self interested, if not to such coffee-table-becoming novelty.

other stuff explaining social relativism such as "Now, the cold truth is this Bin Laden...The key to understanding people like him, ... is realizing that *we* are the caricature on his T-shirt. "

is that profound? in the same way "The Secret" is to Oprah devotees, the last harry potter novel is to my sister, or a popped balloon and empty honey pot are to Eeyore -- to some people I guess.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 06-06-2008, 06:08 PM:
 
10K: I don't want to pay to support or "keep in check" someone's unhealthy life...

You already do right now. The new system would save you money.
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 06-07-2008, 02:52 AM:
 
I am still waiting for black guy's big powerful speech on how he is going to bitch-slap or pistol-whip or glock or whatever black people do to the criminal cartel of American ISPs so that we can have good internet at a fair price.

With a real infrastructure we could be streaming high-def YouTube videos faster than we can consume them. Instead, we get bitchy hand-waving about how (not 'if', we're way past that) they're going to fuck us next.

You office-line Internet2 fucks have it good.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 06-09-2008, 06:20 PM:
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060603498.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

^ i like that article

Obama says that he wants to free the internet:

(edit - when you go to barackobama.com it first prompts you to make a donation before giving access to information. I got a hoot out of that)

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

"Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the Internet’s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy."

another thing I remembered while there was:

"Barack Obama believes that providing opportunities for minority-owned businesses to own radio and television stations is fundamental to creating the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves and demands. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum."

didn't he just talk about the internets in the paragraph above that? >_< oh well more money needs spending I suppose.
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 06-11-2008, 01:33 AM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
Obama says that he wants to free the internet:

---

Yeah, I have gazed longingly at his "Technology" page many times before. He says all the right things, but there's no telling whether or not he'll do any of it. Most people don't give two fucks of a shit about internet stuff.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 06-12-2008, 04:18 AM:
 
There's no guarantee that any politician will do anything about anything, even if they want to, but it's nice that he's saying it.

The thing that pushed me over the edge with Gore was his abject refusal to in any way discuss the environment, which was obviously his major interest. After 8 years of Clinton backing off from things he claimed to care about, I was sick of it. Maybe if he'd had a web page that said all the right things back then, I would have thought twice, but I dunno.

I know it's a cop out, but Obama would have to spend 20 minute splaining the issue to the average voter and they'd be asleep by the time he got to his position on it. Most people don't even know what the Internet is. (I recently got into an argument with a tech at my ISP who insisted that the web and the Internet are exactly the same thing.) At least Obama put his plans on the web where nerds will see them.

I don't think you could expect much more from any politician, especially one who is already being called "elitist" (as if anyone who thinks they should be running the free world is not an elitist).

Also, 10K, what did you like about that Washington Post article? Their "good news" seemed to be that universal health care was becoming more likely as the middle class gradually gets shittier and shittier care.
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 06-16-2008, 01:53 AM:
 
Oh man, another heartbreaker. I really hope people think twice on this one.

"Hey guys, we heard there was some, er, uh... kiddie porn in there! Yeah! That was it, that's one of those things people universally dislike, kiddie porn! That's the thing we found and the excuse we're using to block off newsgroup access."

If Verizon's complete reprehensibility as a wireless carrier is anything to go off of, you'd already know to steer clear of them as a broadband ISP. Trouble is, they're the ones rolling out FiOS which means that if you're coming to the party, you're playing by their rules. I can't imagine we're getting any kind of zany fiberoptic batshit-fast internet out here in Colorado anytime soon, but I've heard that a bunch of the east coast and you Florida fucks in particular are getting all kinds of FiOS loving. At least you've got that bitter Big Cable Company aftertaste to help you wash it down now.

I guess the whole thing probably isn't a dealbreaker -- Comcast is every bit the piece of shit Verizon is and then some, but this strikes me as the next big shouting session from these worthless dicks that they're begging for a big old slice of government to keep them in check.

I wish we had that slice.

[ 06-16-2008, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: starCaliber ]
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 06-16-2008, 11:05 AM:
 
^^ you know what would really impress me with Obama? if he put his money where his mouth was and OBJECTED to blocking "kiddie porn" from the interweb in order to keep it "free and open".
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 06-16-2008, 11:15 AM:
 
I liked this part of the article:

"The reality, however, is that only a minority of the uninsured are either the typical Redbook reader or that nice shopkeeper down the street. Two-thirds of those without health insurance are poor or near poor, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. And there are clear disparities in how different racial and ethnic groups are affected. Only 13 percent of non-Hispanic white Americans is uninsured, compared with 36 percent of Hispanics, 33 percent of Native Americans, 22 percent of blacks and 17 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders.

Politicians understand what this means in practical terms. If a lack of health insurance were truly a white middle-class crisis, then conservatives and liberals would long ago have joined together, carved out a compromise and done something. Instead, we're served a constantly recycled set of excuses for legislative stalemate.

The unofficial Republican attitude toward universal health care can be boiled down to the three "nots": not our voters, not our kind of solution and not our priority. None of the Republican presidential candidates even pretended to present a serious plan for universal coverage, nor did Republican primary voters demand one. The only candidate who had actually worked successfully toward universal health care -- former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney -- apologetically disowned his own groundbreaking achievement. Presumptive nominee John McCain's recent health care proposal doesn't make anything more than a start toward covering all the uninsured.

Meanwhile, Democrats play their own "us vs. them" games. Although high-profile party leaders are loudly calling for universal coverage -- recall the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton slugfest over their respective plans -- they reassure the middle class that the cost of compassion will be covered by repealing tax cuts for the wealthy. This "free lunch" approach may tax credulity, but it does avoid the need for discussing other taxes."

as for the suggestion that someday the motivations of middle class america will be forcibly shifted by steadily rising health care costs to pursue a socialist system: awesome. When the need exists for me I will rock that vote. However until then, rocking my vote on account of big gulp lady, nty.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 06-17-2008, 05:17 AM:
 
That alt.poop sucks. I suppose it's inevitable in an age where even the tech support people don't know wtf the Internet is. How many members of the nerdcore are still using USENET?

Also, 10K, I'd guessed you were interested in the empty, insubstantial portion of the article. I assume your inner Hulk took over and you smashed the monitor before you got to the end.

Invest in stretchy pants.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 06-18-2008, 04:20 PM:
 
I saw the latest hulk. The first one was much better imo. Not sure why most of the reviews panned it but seemed to like the latest one.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 06-20-2008, 10:00 AM:
 
Here's a preview of what Obama's tax plan would be.

http://www.prop3r.com/Files/KIPLINGER_TAX_LETTER_JUNE_13_2008.PDF

unfortunately I don't have the firm's analysis of Mccain's plan.
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 06-21-2008, 12:27 AM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ieR2:
blah blah blah, boring guys. Let's summon Jumpman already.

EARTH!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
Urge to throw vote away with Nader...rising...[/QB]

---

The last time someone in Florida voted for Nader, Bush got in office. Its all your fault.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 07-07-2008, 01:38 AM:
 
And now Obama wants to continue giving government money to religious charities...I wonder if he's gonna go for the trifecta of unconstitutionality.

I can see what he's doing with this one...the government has been in bed with religious hospitals and stuff for ages, and he's talking about serious improvements on Bush's policies (involving other unconstitutional stuff). And he could try to calm everyone down on both sides and be a uniter instead of a divider and all that.

But he's smart enough to know that this is just fundamentally evil. While all the hillbillies are worried about him being a Muslim, I'm starting to worry about him being too Christian for his own good.

Oh well, Carter's a lunatic Bible thumper and he's a decent and honest man, but...gah...

Don't like playing this rationalization game. Going to go play Katamari instead.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 08-08-2008, 12:40 PM:
 
The Black guy and his wife are staying at the Westin across from my office during the DNC. And yes that week of commuting will royally suck.
 

---

Posted by Wintermute (Member # 5) on 08-10-2008, 12:22 PM:
 
If bama's not a closet atheist I'll eat my polygons. Let this Rose interview queue up to 28:30, watch a few minutes, and then tell me that guy's a believer.

I wonder whether any human can be so politically adroit and charismatic (not to mention having the other qualities necessary for presidential candidates - rich, educated, connected, etc) that he can afford to be honest about difficult issues in America during an election. That seems to be who K is waiting for, which on the one hand strikes me as self-flagellatory, OTOH as some Frenchman spraypainted 40 yrs ago: Be realistic. Demand the impossible.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 08-12-2008, 05:19 AM:
 
I was a little taken aback by the straight-shooting in that interview, and then I saw that it was from 2006. That's the guy I got excited about.

My first thought when I saw his speech at the '04 convention was "Man, that guy is great...too bad he's black." I shared the YouTube of the speech with a few people a while later and they said almost exactly the same thing.

I'm still on the line with Obama. I'm waiting to see who he picks as VP before I consider donating to his campaign.

And he keeps saying stuff which he knows is wrong, although he pissed me off less this go-round than the last. He came out and said he'd accept a bill with off shore drilling, which he knows is stupid, and that got me all grumpy with him again.

But then he clarified that the drilling is indeed stupid, but he'd let it slide in the spirit of compromise (also 70% of America's not smart population is for it, so he's at least reflecting the will of the people I guess). So, anyway, then I felt a little better.

And then the Republicans mocked his call for efficiency (in a manner I think would be quite effective on 10K) and then the black man came back by calling the Republicans willfully and gleefully ignorant. And that scored major points with me.

Additionally, if he were president, he could just ban it by decree (as well as undo any FISA damage) and give a big fuck you to all the stupids. Although of course he can't say that out loud.

I'm no longer worried that deep down he doesn't know the right path, but I am a little worried by how far he's willing to stray to win. If he uses Bush as a model, however, (and he is certainly smart enough to do so) he can poop out a few lies on the way in and then just do whatever the fuck he wants once he gets into office.

I wonder if he'll resist that temptation. Probably no reason to do so.

As for the Jesus thing, it does seem pretty apparent from that clip that he sees religion purely as a societal and cultural tool. I think Mr. Vinderloot is right.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 08-12-2008, 09:53 AM:
 
I like the Obama TV ad whose only aim is to show that his mom is white.

as for lolbama as foreign policy jesus:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/1102552,CST-EDT-hunt12.article

preview of future uh-ohs? nah it's just "Obama being Obama."
 

---

Posted by Dragonite21 (Member # 475) on 08-12-2008, 11:49 AM:
 
Obama should also have issued a strong statement demanding that Russia withdraw, right? Those strong statements usually do work. I am sure Russia withdrew because of McCain's strong statement.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 08-13-2008, 06:45 PM:
 
you can't have glib without Obama... I'm sure he'll figure out a snowy way to convince people he did what was most becoming of himself.

On Georgia, I agree with this guy:

here

"The US has no rational basis to be as committed to Georgia as Russia is; and has very little moral standing to protest an invasion of a sovereign country."

which isn't exactly what Mccain said -- so blog man for pres
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 08-14-2008, 11:49 AM:
 
just what we need... another Israel

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/13/georgian-president-to-mccain-move-from-words-to-deeds/
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 08-15-2008, 11:47 PM:
 
10K: I like the Obama TV ad whose only aim is to show that his mom is white.

I like how your posts, and, apparently, nearly all the media you consume, are entirely free of content.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 08-23-2008, 04:51 AM:
 
Wow. I like Biden.

Could it be that I actually get to vote for a Democratic ticket I like in my lifetime?

Well, I guess the Clintons could still fuck shit up somehow. And I could die before November.
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 08-25-2008, 12:01 AM:
 
crossin' dem fangers that he'll appeal to enough voters with a boner for pasty old white men to make the B-Rock thang happen
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 08-26-2008, 11:47 AM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
Wow. I like Biden.

Could it be that I actually get to vote for a Democratic ticket I like in my lifetime?

Well, I guess the Clintons could still fuck shit up somehow. And I could die before November.

---

what's *not* to like about a plagarist!

on top of that he's an old white male that's deeply embedded in "old" washington. Just what an energizing new comer needs to ground his nomination on a platform of youthful exuberance defined as Change.

not

I was hoping he'd go with the chick from Kansas as I'm thinking Obama needs more sway in the west and from hillary supporters than he knows. Bitch must've been wack.
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 08-31-2008, 01:24 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Dragonite21 (Member # 475) on 08-31-2008, 09:34 AM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
I'm not much into MTV, but this article by Kurt Loder is pretty spot on imo:

---

Sorry, this is off-topic, but that made me think of this.

Isn't Obama more popular than Jesus now?
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 09-02-2008, 11:14 AM:
 
10K said: "I'm thinking Obama needs more sway in the west and from hillary supporters than he knows..."

looks like Palin will test out my theory...
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 09-04-2008, 02:29 AM:
 
Imagine if McCain wins.
Black people everywhere will riot.
The anarchy will be glorious.

 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 09-04-2008, 10:12 AM:
 
Wow...

Palin's speech. And to think Rolling Stone and MTV have already married Obama. They might have liked to like her.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 09-05-2008, 02:48 AM:
 
Great delivery, great camera presence, no substance. I see why you like her.

For the record, I thought Obama's convention speech was lame too.

[ 09-05-2008, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 09-06-2008, 10:41 AM:
 
a woman who opposes abortions honestly could you get anymore cartoony-ridiculous up in here

i find palin pretty annoying
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 09-07-2008, 02:36 PM:
 
I find Palin annoying too, since I think she sounds more like Rush Limbaugh than someone who could lead the free world (and not just as the convention, where the point is to rile up the people who already agree with you). She comes across as petty and insane (the God stuff is really scary).

But she has the George Bush factor. People liked him because he wasn't intellectually threatening and he gave them the idea that he's similar to them. I can see a lot of women feeling "Hey, she's a petty asshole just like me! I can relate to this woman!".

McCain obviously isn't going for the youth vote, but think of all the crazy religious white women out there in the flyover states. I think she's a real winner with them.

I think she's very skillful at that thing she's doing. It embarrasses me as an American, but Bush did that for years and people liked him for a long time.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 09-08-2008, 12:15 PM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by starCaliber:
a woman who opposes abortions honestly could you get anymore cartoony-ridiculous up in here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by K:"I find Palin annoying too, since I think she sounds more like Rush Limbaugh than someone who could lead the free world (and not just as the convention, where the point is to rile up the people who already agree with you)"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by K:
But she has the George Bush factor. People liked him because he wasn't intellectually threatening and he gave them the idea that he's similar to them. I can see a lot of women feeling "Hey, she's a petty asshole just like me! I can relate to this woman!".

McCain obviously isn't going for the youth vote, but think of all the crazy religious white women out there in the flyover states. I think she's a real winner with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:

PS - "flyover states"? X_X

---

quote:

---

I kno that would like Martin Luther King Jr. being a Republican am i rite??

---

quote:

---

I kno that would like Martin Luther King Jr. being a Republican am i rite??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:

The rest of his quote, if I'm reading your punctuation correctly, is indefensible nonsense no actual human would believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
Also I am hoping we will get out of 10K Land when the debates start, but I suspect the media will respond with a collective "Oh no, he/she dih-ent!" to some comment or other.

---

heh - I can help you out - I'm going to Honduras for two weeks this weekend. When I return I will be an expert on central american foreign policy!
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 09-17-2008, 05:59 AM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
Commercials do suck balls, and they're even worse on the computer.

---

Have you played around with Hulu? It's pretty solid, someone said "it's like YouTube has grown up and gotten a job." The ad interruptions are usually minor, but they have started trying to sneak in these annoying ads that are visible at the bottom of the screen while you're watching stuff -- those are jarring and I hope they shitcan them.

The shittiest part of Hulu I've discovered is that it will not stream ahead (or "buffer") when you pause the video. We were trying to watch the premiere of that awful Fringe show the other night and I guess their servers were getting slammed because it was pretty much Choppyville the whole way through. About 14 minutes in, and the woman's had all she can take (I'd already quit watching) so we closed the shit and grabbed a commercial-free 720p pirated rip from Usenet, and it downloaded as fast as our shitty Comcast connection would allow.

You win, networks...?

[ 09-17-2008, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: starCaliber ]
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 09-17-2008, 05:18 PM:
 
I've tried Hulu and it worked for the thing I was looking for, but I usually stick to the TiVo, since I don't yet have a reasonable way to output PC data to the teevee. I don't think Hulu has a lot of the nonsense I watch either, like the McLaughlin Group.

(Pat Buchanan is an asshole, but he's not intellectually dishonest like most Republicans, so he's interesting to watch. Then they've got McLaughlin himself, who might be the funniest guy on teevee, and The Least Threatening Negro in the World. Also it's a lot of fun to watch the conservatives rile up that poor old liberal woman. I guess it's my version of Jay Leno, since it's low on content and rarely informative, but I find it funny.)

EDIT: Also, this sums up the show, although he's been much funnier, such as when he declared "Warren G. Harding was a negro!".

Anyway, I've adjusted to the shitty quality of YouTube, which is sort of amusing since it makes me crave HD even less.

Also I finally sent a few bucks to Obama (never done that for a Democrat before) and he sent me some questions about issues. I plugged your net neutrality thing, and said it's something the kids care about and adults will have no idea wtf it is, so advertising his position can't hurt.

You're welcome.

[ 09-18-2008, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 

---

Posted by Funnel Freak (Member # 910) on 09-18-2008, 04:16 PM:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1LMoWqXrE4

and everyone knows Hilary ends up winning after they postpone the election.

[ 09-21-2008, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: Funnel Freak ]
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 10-04-2008, 09:18 PM:
 
first post of october
 

---

Posted by HikerNick (Member # 4063) on 10-05-2008, 01:33 AM:
 
Second for me, then.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-06-2008, 04:48 PM:
 
If that was the October Surprise, it was pretty weak.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-09-2008, 02:20 PM:
 
Fact check this for me plz
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 10-10-2008, 10:05 PM:
 
McCain has to defend Obama at his KKK rallies and Palin abused her power.

What a fun day.


 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-15-2008, 05:31 PM:
 
10K: Fact check this for me plz

It's pretty much impossible, because everyone only talks about the figures that benefit their argument.

This article talks only about taxes, but doesn't address health care costs. If you save on taxes, but your insurance costs increase, then all we've got is another a complicated way for Republicans to funnel more citizen funds to large corporations (eg, Halliburton, Exxon, pharmaceutical companies, etc.)

One thing that is clear that the free market does not result in a desirable situation when it comes to insurance. Another is that giving individuals the "freedom" to fail on these complex issues will result in failure (see: current mortgage implosion, private retirement funds vs. old skool pensions, etc.) that affects everyone, even the psychotically selfish.

Obama's plan is probably a baby step towards socialized medicine (although it could be done with highly-regulated private companies, as other countries have done), since it would get a generation of children enrolled in a government plan. If it works, they'll want to keep it forever.

Giving citizens more cash via tax cuts doesn't fix the fundamental problem with the health care system, although Obama's plan might be too pussy to make any serious progress. It matches with his "slow and steady" style, though, so at least I believe that's his actual plan.

Whether or not it would work probably depends on how much of health care "crisis" there really is. If you map that against what is possible, maybe he's chosen the best path.

Kind of like how I want him to stomp McCain in the debates and call him on all his lies...to me, the point of a debate would be to prove your superiority by actually winning it. Obama is smarter than me, however, and has realized that Americans don't care about who wins (maybe they are incapable of detecting a winner), they only want to imagine both guys as president and see who seems to be the best fit.

If he's right about the debate thing, maybe he's right about the best way to fix health care.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-17-2008, 12:46 PM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
Obama's plan is probably a baby step towards socialized medicine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
What do you think Sama?

---

 

---

Posted by Dragonite21 (Member # 475) on 10-18-2008, 08:09 AM:
 


[ 10-18-2008, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Dragonite21 ]
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-20-2008, 11:31 AM:
 
hehe. Giving money away to people with less of it is hardly the basis of civilization, nor is it, and opposite what the black guy asserts, good for everybody (which is obvious).

Oh man! John Stewart just landed another hilarious zing at Sarah Palin!! ROFL

What was I saying? Must not have been very important. Caribou Barbie LOL she sucks.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-20-2008, 01:06 PM:
 
10K: Giving money away to people with less of it is hardly the basis of civilization...

Pooling resources is the basis of civilization.

Also fixing roads is not a handout to the poor.

...nor is it, and opposite what the black guy asserts, good for everybody (which is obvious).

Actually, it is, but I wouldn't expect you to accept facts or do any research.

More to the point, the government is currently redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich. Obama is suggesting that we do less of that. Perhaps because you compress all thought to a few words spoonfed to you by some news outlet (or maybe it's your irrational hatred of reality), you have misinterpreted Obama's position.

You like telling us about all your electronics purchases, so maybe you make more than $250K/year. If you don't and you want to keep more of your own money, vote for Obama.

Caribou Barbie LOL she sucks.

The shit that passes for political discourse in your mind is so depressing.
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 10-20-2008, 02:33 PM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
[QB]

You like telling us about all your electronics purchases, so maybe you make more than $250K/year. If you don't and you want to keep more of your own money, vote for Obama.

---

Tax break down
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-20-2008, 08:31 PM:
 
"pooling resources" nice phrase! ;D

I guess if you say that giving my money away behooves me -- well then I guess it does! Let me just wipe my mind of all critical thinking that may have offended you and join the peace train.



yay socialism! Boo Caribou Barbie! ROFL jon Stewart!
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 10-21-2008, 12:48 AM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
I guess if you say that giving my money away behooves me -- well then I guess it does!

---

You're not giving away money. You're paying for my medicine.

Thank you for that.
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 10-21-2008, 12:03 PM:
 
I think it's pretty clear that B-Rock's actually got a plan for a healthcare system that doesn't suck (his effectiveness in executing same remains to be seen, of course), and McCain could really give a shit less because "hurr we give you money" is a good way of tricking moron Americans into thinking they're getting the better deal overall. I know I talk about cellphones a lot (it's because I love them), but if you think for a minute this isn't the case, just ask the 25 billion stupid faggots carrying Motorola RAZRs because they were "free" with a technology-growth-stifling hideously overpriced and underfunctional Verizon contract.

Saying "hurf durf private sector hurf durf" works for some things, and for others it gets you criminal bullshit like Comcast, the American wireless cartel, and healthcare that's pointlessly expensive; whereas socializing it would pretty obviously make even "the good stuff" cheaper for even the snootiest of fuckheads. Buy in bulk and saaaaaave, son. Even if the government totally sucks at supplying healthcare (possibly but unlikely), their presence in the market will drive private insurance offerings to suck less: maybe they'll be cheaper, maybe they'll offer lower deductibles, maybe they'll hook you up with better doctors. There is basically nothing bad that can come out of this, and the more I think about it the more I realize that my USPS example was short-sighted: how much more would UPS and FedEx shipping cost if USPS weren't dishing out mediocrity by the asshole-full to keep them honest?

University health centers are another great example. You can buy all kinds of random shit more cheaply than the local pharmacy will sell it -- e.g. birth control pills, morning-after pills for when you forget to use your birth control pills, abortions for when you forget to use your morning after pills, etc. -- because the health center buys it in bulk. You can go in and at least have a physician take a look at you for free most of the time, and the (admittedly limited) range of treatments offered are often deeply-discounted. Students pay a minimal health fee for this kind of thing, and nobody's ever pissed about it. It's not a perfect analogy, but I feel like it's a good indicator.

As far as things that I personally care about (and that mouthbreather voters and the candidates by proxy, don't), I found this article that discusses their positions. It's comforting to see that even McCain's (allegedly) cool with not using "child porn" as a crutch to censor content like the shitheads down under are doing. On the other hand, I don't think I really agree with Barack's scheme to blow a bunch of money on computers in schools. My high school had some sort of bonus "technology funding" program to buy computers, and they managed to horsefuck their way into becoming an "all Mac campus" which translated at the time to a bunch of fuckawful gaudy turqoise and pink "iMacs" that perpetuated the idea to my already-computer-fucktarded peer group that the computer and the monitor were the same thing, and ran Mac OS 9 which was a worthless pile of shitcake even in its prime.

I feel like phsyical computer hardware is an area where the private sector has done a bang-up job. Any Nigerian boy living in the United States can mow lawns for a summer to scrounge up one of those $199 Wal-Mart Linux PCs, then he can use BitTorrent and his wits to pirate a copy of Windows XP for it, then he can start scamming people with Nigerian prince ads on craigslist, and the next thing you know he's rolling his own four thousand dollar gaming rig and developing contracted .NET apps for Fortune 500 companies from the comfort of his cave or whatever.

I agree with the broadband lines, though -- even if it delays the smackdown that our telcos need to have laid on them. There shouldn't be a single city in the U.S. where you have to use a dial-up modem to get your goat porn.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-22-2008, 12:07 PM:
 
"I think it's pretty clear that B-Rock's actually got a plan for a healthcare system that doesn't suck "

no - not really. :[

[ 10-22-2008, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: 10,000Lb.Snorlax ]
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 10-22-2008, 02:59 PM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
"I think it's pretty clear that B-Rock's actually got a plan for a healthcare system that doesn't suck "

no - not really. :[

---

sorry man, I believe in the power of buying in bulk. do you have a Costco membership?

i want a Costco membership for hurting myself (even if I never need to use it)

[ 10-22-2008, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: starCaliber ]
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 10-22-2008, 07:14 PM:
 
I go costco and get a hotdog for $1.50. It comes with a drink.

Sometimes, I get the pizza.

My favorite is the hand dipped ice cream bar. That is really good.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-23-2008, 01:57 AM:
 
10K: "pooling resources" nice phrase!

Because that's what Obama is talking about. He's not talking about giving your money to a poor person. The government does things and someone's got to pay for them.

This whole "socialism" thing is just old skool red-baiting. Most Americans like the programs we have that resemble socialism, and society cannot function without them. You, for example, don't even know what socialism is, but you fear it.

Bush just nationalized the banks and you're worried about some comment Obama made that you don't even understand.

As Cal points out, there is great value in the lumbering mediocrity of giant government programs. We'd be completely fucked right now if we'd privatized Social Security. One of the great benefits of a big fat slow plan is consistency. It also prevents over-reliance on trends, like sub-prime loans.

This model doesn't work for everything, obviously, but there's nothing to fear from the Postal Service or the interstate highway system.

Let me just wipe my mind of all critical thinking...

Sadly, you don't know what critical thinking is either.

This gets to Cal's point about our shitty educational system. I have a few friends who are teachers and they completely agree with Cal's point. They don't even think they are particularly underpaid or that the schools are underfunded, but that the money is spent in terrible ways by people who have Peter Principled themselves to the top of the heap.

Not sure the best way to deal with this. You can't turn the system over to a free market approach, because market forces will work to marginalize the worst students so they don't affect each school's bottom line. "No Child Left Behind" has been a dismal failure, and "teaching to the tests" has fucked up a generation of students.

That said, you have to have some standards, and if you can't pass the ludicrously easy standardized tests, then you really don't deserve to graduate.

I think the problem has been in attacking the symptoms instead of the root cause. American scores were low, so they passed legislation to say "raise the scores!". There was no serious attempt to figure out wtf we've been doing wrong for so long and solve that problem, which would result in the scores rising on their own.

The problem is that we need smart, rational people to design the educational programs, and those guys are usually driven out of government. An Obama administration would likely value intelligence, learning, and pragmatism (see this TIME puff piece for some interesting examples), so I have some hope they'd be able to figure out a solution.

For one thing, he's acknowledged that solving the energy problem will fix many things at once (the economy, terrorism, global warming, low opinion of America both at home and abroad, etc.) and applying money to that problem will result in benefits across the board. That's a refreshing, un-10K-like view of the world that we need more of.

Boo Caribou Barbie! ROFL jon Stewart!

We need a lot less of whatever the fuck that is.

There's a new study out that shows that paying students for good grades actually works. My initial reaction is abject horror, but if this is what it takes to get students to take education seriously, maybe it's a reasonable plan. We're currently throwing a lot of money at the problem in stupid ways. We don't seem to have a shortage of money, and when money is cheaper than good ideas, maybe this is the best use of it.

A more adult way to handle the situation would be to convince idiots like 10K that learning has value. Making a cultural change like that is incredibly tricky, especially when the nation is populated with idiots who don't understand education (due to the shitty school system), much less have any respect for it.

I still think Sesame Street had more to do with limiting the affects of racism than it ever gets credit for. There's got to be some analogous under-the-radar solution for this problem.

Maybe after a generation of tricking kids into being smart by paying them, society would change on its own, but there's got to be a better way.

[ 10-23-2008, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-23-2008, 12:43 PM:
 
"This whole "socialism" thing is just old skool red-baiting"

no it isn't. Wealth distribution is socialism. It's fine if you are in favor of Socialism - just don't act like that is not what you are advocating (like "I'm advocating 'Better'" -- because you are not -- you are advocating socialism).

"As Cal points out, there is great value in the lumbering mediocrity of giant government programs. We'd be completely fucked right now if we'd privatized Social Security. One of the great benefits of a big fat slow plan is consistency. It also prevents over-reliance on trends, like sub-prime loans."

"The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556587.html

"The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power"
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=12429544

"I have a few friends who are teachers and they completely agree with Cal's point."

well argued! The prosecution rests. Much more insight than The Economist or professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon.

"There's a new study out that shows that paying students for good grades actually works. My initial reaction is abject horror, but if this is what it takes to get students to take education seriously, maybe it's a reasonable plan."

is this a joke?

Capitalism encourages students to do well and learn with the reward of higher paying jobs and better opportunities. Doctors go through 8 years of school and terrible ER indentured servitude so that they can make $$$$$$ when they're done.

I don't believe you think we should be paying poorly performing students to encourage them to do well in school. That's beyond socialism - that's some sort of fucked up reverse meritocracy. Hmm maybe the government should give tax cuts to families of students that do poorly in school then they will be better able to study (because lack of money prohibits academic achievement). Perhaps the families of the students that are doing well in school can pay for such a program. They obviously have a largess of resources that should be "pooled" for better use by those in need.

Alternatively we could raise the salary of public educators -- the more money that they earn the better teachers there will be, right? does government spending solve all social problems? At what point is the individual (student, parent, teacher) responsible for education? The market forces already exist to encourage them all to succeed at their tasks. How many apple computers need to be purchased to make people finish highschool?

"The problem is that we need smart, rational people ... and those guys are usually driven out of government."

Caribou Barbie!

"An Obama administration would likely value intelligence, learning, and pragmatism..., so I have some hope they'd be able to figure out a solution."

compared to what?

(Oh yeah - a nuevo George Bush with horns and a crucifix-as-axe who eats gays and shits oil. Yes you are right Obama is definitely the superior choice to a non democrat.)

the reality being that both candidates are smart people that value intelligence and pragmatism. As for driving for energy independence, imo mccain is more than obama. While both support alternative, clean energies, in the meantime old white guy would tap domestic resources and build nuclear plants. Just because obama can act like oil is dirty and unneeded and a clean rehaul is as easy as saying so -- doesn't remove practicality from the mix. Until energy nirvana is attained (not as simple as obama saying it will be when he is president) The US ecomony requires oil to move good and services. It is a neccessity. Acting like it is a relic that is simply replaced is dishonest and false. It will be eventually -- but in the meantime let's use our resources in order to help get us there.

"You like telling us about all your electronics purchases, so maybe you make more than $250K/year"

And you like to go to the zoo - so maybe you like to fuck dromedaries.
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 10-23-2008, 02:06 PM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
Wealth distribution is socialism. It's fine if you are in favor of Socialism - just don't act like that is not what you are advocating

---

I can't speak for my boy Jef, but I absolutely favor socialism where it makes sense.

The key here (and the disconnect in this thread) is "where it makes sense." It's not all or nothing, I don't think anyone here is advocating all or nothing, and the quote you dropped in once and then dropped in again because you loves the copy and the paste ( ) is a sweeping generalization that doesn't fit.

A person's not a communist/socialist/anti-American if they say "hey, let's take a step back here and see if it wouldn't make a lot of sense for everyone if this specific thing that's not working well were socialized," -- they're a person making a practical evaluation. If that person turned around and started blindly trying to socialize everything (which you seem to suggest that anyone in favor of Obama's healthcare plan would), they're just as bad as the tards who refuse to critically evaluate alternatives to something we're doing that's not working, out of an irrational fear of trying something different.

Socializing healthcare appears to make good sense for everyone if it's done properly. The point of an election is to pick someone competent enough to do things properly.

The thing that drives me fucking crazy about this election are the folks running around bitching about how they don't want to see B-Rock roll his blingin'-rims (hybrid) Escalade loaded with only the finest watermelons into the White House because he's somehow an "elite" or a "snooty Harvard Law" guy, and they want to vote for a dummy they can relate to. I want to vote for someone smarter than me. The whole gimmick of the U.S. presidency is that it's a hard fuckin' job. If we could engineer some kind of super-elite outer space alien that was even smarter and better-educated and snootier than 30 Obamas combined, I would vote for that thing.

The best point you've made against socialized healthcare so far is the question of how to exclude/overcharge people who voluntarily partake in activities that make them higher risk, but even that's not a fair stab. How are they dealt with now? If someone without insurance puffs five packs of cancer sticks a day and has to be rushed to the hospital and treated as a direct result (but then can't pay the bill later), it's too late -- they've already been treated. Someone else pays for that now anyway, so we'd might as well be honest with ourselves and have an organized policy for how to subsidize that bullshit -- we'll even save some money in the process.

What activities are fair to flag? How much more is fair to charge high-risk motherfuckers past a mandatory buy-in? What's the best way to get a basic level of treatment out to those folks as cost-effectively as possible so that they don't fag it up for the rest of us? I don't know, but I sure would like to have a snooty, well-educated dude go and figure it out for me.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-24-2008, 03:01 AM:
 
First of all, I'm just going to use the term "socialism" in the pop culture sense, because 10K doesn't know what the fuck it is anyway, and it's convenient for our discussion.

10K: Wealth distribution is socialism.

As Warren Buffett said a few days ago another word for wealth distribution is "economy".

It's fine if you are in favor of Socialism...

In this discussion apparently Socialism is the Big Gulp Lady 10K irrationally fears.

Anything that needs to be done for society but doesn't directly generate profit is (in the general use of the term) socialistic, and is not a good match for the free market. This includes roads, cops, education, the military, the space program, safety regulation, and a thousand other things you like that would not be reasonably handled in a free market.

"Socialism" is already here on a huge scale, whether it's banks or corporations that are "too big to fail" or basic services that, one way or another, are going to be paid for by the taxpayer.

There's just no merit to the claim that altering the tax code is in any detectable way more or less "socialistic" than things are now.

People are simply using the word socialism in a political context to whip up the uneducated, reactionary retards.

As for those quotes:



It's also a given that an unregulated free market is a complete disaster.

"There's a new study out that shows that paying students for good grades actually works. My initial reaction is abject horror, but if this is what it takes to get students to take education seriously, maybe it's a reasonable plan."

is this a joke?

That's what I thought when I first heard it, but if it works, it works.

I don't believe you think we should be paying poorly performing students to encourage them to do well in school.

You should like the plan. It would pay all students, so no poor people would have access to something your kid wouldn't.

I think there are probably negative ramifications to suggesting that the only reason to get an education is to get money (although I'd imagine you'd like that part as well). And good grades don't necessarily translate into actual learning. On the other hand, society breaks down when people can't fucking read and it would be nice if America didn't have to continue to import all of its greatest scientific minds, so it's worth thinking about.

My point is that you have to think outside the box, and you can't explode into blind rage the first time you see a Big Gulp Lady and close off any avenues of thought.

I would prefer that kids actually understand that school is not punishment and that learning can be fun and knowledge gives you some degree of control over your life. I didn't get that memo when I was a kid, so I hated skool and hated reading and tried to figure out how to get out of learning anything. I bailed on advanced classes because I didn't see how they were doing anything other than inconveniencing me.

I had a few decent teachers in hi skool who opened my eyes, although I'd already wasted most of my public skool career by then. In kollege I had to work this out my own, because classes there were also, for the most part, boring and poorly-designed.

I'd like to reform all that, as well as give teachers the societal respect that doctors and lawyers have, because their jobs are by far the most important jobs in the land. I'd like to erase the whole "Those who can do, those who can't teach." meme and fire every last one of those lousy teachers who taught me (or at least retrain them to use better methods).

But all that is way fucking hard. Attempts to throw money at the problem have not worked. Teachers make reasonable salaries, but they get no fucking respect. So the free market isn't going to fix it that way.

If giving kids cash for good grades actually works, even if it seems to violate everything we think we know about education, it might be worth trying. If DDR can trick kids into exercising than there are any number of other counterintuitive things out there that can benefit society.

You can't live in fear of Big Gulp Lady.

Just because obama can act like oil is dirty and unneeded and a clean rehaul is as easy as saying so -- doesn't remove practicality from the mix.

That's why he accepts that nuclear, oil, and coal are a part of our future, although he obviously doesn't prefer them.

[ 10-24-2008, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 10-26-2008, 11:52 AM:
 
so B-Rock's coming to speak today, about 50 feet away from our apartment building.

we gon' walk over and check that out.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-27-2008, 05:14 PM:
 
I've come to grips with the fact (once again) that the world will not explode when obama is elected. In fact I doubt much will change on a day to day basis in terms of my personal experience. If anything though hundreds of thousands of Americans will be happier and people around the world will think more favorably of America, which is actually a pretty great thing. Perception creates reality, so perhaps simply by advocating happiness, betterness and hope these things will come to pass.

I guess you call this stage "Acceptance"

/takes hit of Hope

mmmm. that's good stuff. Got any Change or Black Eyed Peas youtube mixes I can get in on?
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-28-2008, 04:23 AM:
 
Cal: we gon' walk over and check that out.

Hopefully you didn't decide to go with formal attire and wear a white tux and top hat. That would have been awkward.

Any cell phone video?
 

---

Posted by Uiru (Member # 437) on 10-28-2008, 12:07 PM:
 
Man, I just had to go like seven passwords back to get in here. Should probably change that.

So this thread is literally the only thing on the site that keeps me coming back right now. Something I've noticed is that yes, opponents of "evil Socialism" don't seem to know what socialism actually is. Now, the interesting part is that it appears the Republicans have just endorsed doing something to the banks, I can't remember exactly what, making them public or something, but whatever it was, it's one of the core tenets of- surprise!- socialism. I'd be interested in learning more about that, and hearing thoughts from both sides.

Also, the idea arose from a few Repubs on RPGamer (lol dt) that public health care is somehow inferior to private, and then a list of problems with the Canadian/British/etc health care systems are given. The problem is that this information is all heresay from mostly other Americans. Try asking a Canadian what he thinks of his free health care (it's awesome!) for a little perspective. It's not perfect, but the problems Canada has, for instance, are symptoms of other issues and not with the public system itself.

Please, continue.
~Uiru

[ 10-28-2008, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Uiru ]
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 10-28-2008, 08:11 PM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. K:
Any cell phone video?

---

No cellphone video from the middle of the crowd (because seriously who wants to see that), but here's a crappy snapshot from where we were standing. We sauntered over there just a half hour before he went on, and the highlight of the excursion was discovering that the delicious burrito joint a quarter-block north of the venue had nobody in line. Delicious lunch, a Vote For Change from "fukken starving" to "god damn I'm stuffed" if I've ever seen one.

They're saying that 45-50,000 people showed up, and I'd certainly believe it. Interesting fun facts are that our entire city is only 120,000 folks, the venue was about 1/16th of the campus (at a school of ~30,000 students that's already stupid-overcrowded), and our county went Bush in 2004. It will be neat to see how things shake out, and I think it's cute and exciting that Colorado's electoral votes actually count for a little sumpin'-somethin' this year.

I can't imagine anyone cares since I'm sure it's basically the same speech he gives everywhere, but the video of it is here (right sidebar, 3 parts).

The most annoying part for me was when the drone-fucks flung themselves into one of those rhythmic "yes we can" chants. I like to entertain the idea that Obama fanatics are generally rational people who might think kind of like I do, but you've got to admit there's something of an unnerving pre-WWII Germany quality to the "OH MY GOD WE NEED CHANGE WE THIRST FOR IT" mentality of B-Rock voters in this election.

I tell myself it's just silly propaganda enthusiasm heightened by the Bush reign of fucktardedry, but man, you gotta wonder.

~Uiru
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 10-29-2008, 01:33 AM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
/takes hit of Hope

mmmm. that's good stuff. Got any Change or Black Eyed Peas youtube mixes I can get in on?

---

Have some more hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW-6DpC-mj8

oh fuck
~Uiru

[ 10-29-2008, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: MewtwoSama ]
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-29-2008, 01:02 PM:
 
Uiru - hm when I was in Honduras I did talk to some Canadians. Their experiences were very opposite yours. No surprise there -- just like currently, some people love it while others not so much. The "universal" part doesn't relate to quality.

and just when I'm about to turn a blind eye to americans voting for socialism, I am reminded that many of the beneficiaries of the black guy's cuts are non taxpayers. Socialism is all well and pretty when everybody gives and everybody takes. Then you walk out of the classroom...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122524355079278651.html?

please do convince me this is good -- part of being patriotic, etc.

Actually no - just link a couple youtube videos of everyone not being Barack Obama being responsible for current state of America.

like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE

[ 10-29-2008, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: 10,000Lb.Snorlax ]
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-29-2008, 08:42 PM:
 
Cal: They're saying that 45-50,000 people showed up, and I'd certainly believe it.

It amazes me how this happens, especially considering how often campaign schedules change. Every time I hear about one of these free things, they're already "sold out".

I've managed to not see Barack a couple times this year, and also Gore when he was on the Unfortunate Truth tour and Bill Clinton just yammering away about something before the campaign.. I did get to see John Waters, who was hilarious. Also the Violent Femmes.

It's actually pretty cool that there are at least some people who care, but I wonder if the crowds wouldn't be twice the size if it were some inane celebutard.

The most annoying part for me was when the drone-fucks flung themselves into one of those rhythmic "yes we can" chants.

Well, it's a classic oratorical thing to keep the crowd excited, used by everyone from preachers to rock bands. I know what you mean, though.

At least they're shouting something positive, and not the stuff the McCain/Palin crowds shout.

I heard someone refer to the US as an Ohio-cracy the other day, and a number of people have noted that our elections are dictated by that small minority of complete idiots known as "swing voters". Some of the same morons who voted for Bush twice will be voting for Obama, and either way both campaigns are tailoring their ads towards people who are as politically involved as blind cave fish.

This bit from the Stern Show is very telling. The right-wing shows that keep replaying this clip don't include the part where a Harlem McCain voter did exactly the same thing.

No matter who wins, it's not going to be due anything written in any paper or any specific policy, it's all a result of which candidate these troglodytes like better on a personal level or which negative ads or magic words (Arab! Socialist! Old! Cranky!) they respond to.

Best to pretend like the real political discourse matters, I guess, for everyone's sake.

10K: ...ug...socialism...ooga booga...

Why is it socialism when poor people get a tax cut, but not socialism when rich people and huge corporations get tax cuts?

As for the state of the US medical system, it regularly ranks way behind those of other free nations in independent studies, in terms of value, level of satisfaction, and simple effectiveness. Anecdotes are fun, but they don't beat detailed analysis.

Oh, and as for Obama songs, I thought the will.i.am one was great, but pretty much every other one I've seen is almost as bad as that Ameri-cuh!! 9/11 song.

~Uiru

[ 10-29-2008, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 10-29-2008, 10:58 PM:
 
In Alaska, they have socialism. Every resident gets free monies.

~Uiru

PS anyone post this yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRB2wFhXIPs

[ 10-30-2008, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: MewtwoSama ]
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-30-2008, 10:19 AM:
 
I'm not talking about tax cuts for poor people -I'm talking about the $$$$$ in governments services and programs that are aimed at benefitting people who do not pay taxes.

ooga booga
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-30-2008, 06:12 PM:
 
Rather than try to convince you of the benefit of social programs, I'll try something else...

...let's say you're right, and Obama has a secret plan to take all your money and give it to Big Gulp Ladies across the country.

To what end?

Is he attempting to appease the extremely powerful homeless/too-mentally-unstable-to-work/chronically-lazy/illiterate/morbidly-obese/severely-handicapped/hateful-leech/whatever lobby?

What would be the result of his success and what would Obama get out of it?

EDIT: Oops, forgot to sign this.

~Uiru

[ 10-30-2008, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-31-2008, 02:04 PM:
 
Also the black guy really understands the series of tubes. His website tricks all the kids into setting up myspace-type pages and chatting amongst themselves, networking in RL, all that krap...but the real genius is offering these small things you can do in a few minutes.

Call some people or walk around your own neighborhood and knock on doors. It gives you a couple minutes of YouTube training a bunch of phone numbers or addresses, pats you on the butt, and sends you on your way.

You get points and rankings and levels, to trick the video game generation into working without getting bored...just a few more minutes to find the next magic biscuit before playing some other game.

Just minutes to get started, and suddenly you're talking to old people in Ohio on your own cellphone from the comfort of your own dorm.

They get instant results with only the investment in the website and the data management behind it.

Friggin' genius.

~Uhura

[ 10-31-2008, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 10-31-2008, 02:50 PM:
 
Some of links:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-chicago-socialist,0,4048540.story

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1030/p09s01-coop.html

http://www.itsnotsocialism.com/

-Sulu

PS, lol butt cancer
 

---

Posted by Rolken (Member # 7) on 11-01-2008, 03:01 PM:
 
The shortcut sign that there's no substance to 10K in this topic is how everything he says is 100% pro-Republican and 100% anti-Democrat. Anyone seriously considering the candidates (hi Mr K, hi sC) would be finding -something- that cuts against the grain somewhere, but 10K is either incapable of finding it or uninterested in discussing it. 10K completely failing to reflect on the recent bank nationalization and anything it might imply about his preferred candidates or "philosophies" is a good example, particularly as he cherry picks Uiru's post to avoid talking about the stuff he doesn't want to.

That said, the election is over at this point. Capital-T They just can't say so because to make that the narrative would in itself alter the course of the race, plus 2000 was pretty embarrassing, plus they hate to reinforce the "liberal media" meme. But it remains undeniably the case.

~Spock

[ 11-03-2008, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: MewtwoSama ]
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 11-03-2008, 11:53 AM:
 
I can't tell what was post-edited and what was actually written. In anycase continue to believe what you want to and I'll do the same. Go Bama!

~Scotty

[ 11-03-2008, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: MewtwoSama ]
 

---

Posted by Rolken (Member # 7) on 11-03-2008, 04:20 PM:
 
The distinction here being that we will continue to believe what we do because we are capable of presenting it in a rational and thoughtful way, whereas you have apparently given up the attempt to reconcile your spiteful misdirected selfishness with logic. And so you don't get hopelessly confused again and continue using that as a pretext to dismiss whatever I say (as though it possibly being said by someone else would somehow make it less correct), I will spare Sama the need to edit my post.

~Spock
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 11-05-2008, 11:09 PM:
 
If it wasn't for Seven of Nine, there'd be no State Senator Obama.

Apparently, Obama learned Socialism from Star Trek.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/167755/page/6

This is all Gene Roddenberry's fault.
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 11-11-2008, 03:04 AM:
 
Nerd: All your base are belong to us
Obama: What you say?
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 11-12-2008, 12:04 PM:
 


I want to believe that story.

Also do the forum icons look funny for everyone?
 

---

Posted by Mentar the Malady Monkey (Member # 1182) on 12-22-2008, 03:51 AM:
 
BOO HOO THE GOVERNMENT IS GONNA RAISE TAXES on the very very rich BOO HOO WHAT A SHAME
 

---

Posted by Face (Member # 1916) on 12-23-2008, 11:05 AM:
 
Obama is going to change America guys. No matter what anyone says, history has just been made with his election.
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 01-15-2009, 05:57 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Mewone (Member # 1694) on 01-20-2009, 03:14 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 01-20-2009, 03:24 PM:
 
"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over."
-- Some Dead Bald White Guy

Also Nostradamus as a vegetable.

[ 01-20-2009, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 

---

Posted by Mentar the Malady Monkey (Member # 1182) on 04-04-2009, 07:01 PM:
 
hmm yase Obama is a socialist

*watches obama funnel lots of taxpayer money into private corporations and say no to nationalization*

*watches obama continue to support the bloated military-industrial complex*

*watches obama say no to single-payer healthcare*

*still thinks obama is a socialist*

*is an idiot*

*is 10k*
 

---

Posted by Dragonite21 (Member # 475) on 01-21-2010, 03:49 AM:
 
so why does everybody hate him now, are they racist?
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 01-21-2010, 04:41 PM:
 
We hate him because he said he was going to do fun things and the only things he's done are boring and are taking forever.

Actually, we don't hate him, we just wish he would do more of what he said he was going to do. Congressional Democrats are falling all over themselves to fail in new and different ways, ensuring that nothing, good or bad, in any way happens.

People are pissed because nothing interesting is going on, other than the slow decline of our economy.

Congressional Democrats have, of course, interpreted this all to mean "we should do even less!".

I've never seen a more relentlessly self-destructive organization than the Democratic party.

Anyway, if the world would stop exploding for 10 seconds, he might actually be able to do stuff once he gets health care off the table. It's an ugly thing that everyone sort-of-but-not-really cares about, so everyone is unhappy, even the people who are getting exactly what they want.

At this rate, though, he'll be two years into this thing before he actually starts doing anything. It's part of the plan, though. You do the boring stuff that needs to be done first. Then your party gets blasted in the mid-terms. Then you do the fun stuff.

Let's hope he gets around to the fun stuff some day.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 02-03-2010, 05:37 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 03-22-2010, 10:31 AM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragonite21:

---

Its a great day for America everybody!
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 03-23-2010, 12:25 AM:
 
OMFG socialism is here and the market went up 44 points.

That will surely change tomorrow, when the trucks start showing up at our homes to nationalize our personal belongings.

The apocalypse has finally arrived. It's a good thing too, because it would really suck if we all had to pay for 30 million more doctor visits when the holy fire starts burning the flesh off our bodies.

I'm going to go outside and watch the abortions taking place in the streets. Free entertainment!

Also I wonder how many more decades it will be before Congress actually passes serious health care reform.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-18-2010, 03:06 PM:
 
bump because the black guy still sucks
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-25-2010, 06:48 PM:
 
And yet he still loves you.
 

---

Posted by Psybro (Member # 290) on 10-31-2010, 02:34 AM:
 
There's a show on CNN about the Tea Party right now. I think the issue is that Republicans are spoilt children,and America doesn't deal with spoilt children.

They want guns, but they don't want their kids shot. They want healthcare and education, but they don't want to pay for them. They want to say and think racist things without being called bigots. They want to text when they drive and keep their license. They want to get good Mexican food but preferably never see a Mexican person. They want to drive up the road to pick up a trunkload of over-the-counter drugs and then sue the pharmacy when they grow a foot in their ballsack. They want to kill their boss but think unions are for fags. They want to have jobs but will resist any attempts to create them.

They want to have a democratic system, but if it happens not to elect their guy, they want to bitch and whine and call treason. In the same position, Democrats will jump over their mothers to adopt Republican ideas because Americans can't deal with obnoxious children, which is why we had to send Super Nanny over there.

[ 10-31-2010, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: Psybro ]
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 11-04-2010, 06:14 AM:
 
Psybro: I think the issue is that Republicans are spoilt children,and America doesn't deal with spoilt children.

Hey, no fair. We elect them all the time, so we can keep an eye on them.

They want healthcare and education, but they don't want to pay for them.

Actually, I disagree here. They're only slightly interested in health care (and not at all before they're sick) and they really don't want education. Educated Americans are not "real" Americans.

They want to say and think racist things without being called bigots.

They're kind of proud of being bigots. It gives them status in the moron community.

They want to kill their boss but think unions are for fags.

This is one of the most disturbing trends. At some point, dipshits of all flavors decided that organized labor is a bad thing. Basically, the spoilt children you mention are pissed off that someone might have things better than they do, and rather then getting of their asses and organizing so they can get those same bennies, they choose to resent them.

Corporate America (which is the only reason these teabaggers are not completely ignored) have tricked the great unwashed into doing their bidding. People believe that corporations are the good guys, fighting against the big bad gummint. These people are rock stupid. See previous comments about education.

And of course they can get away with this, because, as I mentioned before, these dipshits hate education and any useful information that might have snuck into their brains by taking part in it.

They hate immigrants and furners of all kinds, except that they take their marching orders for a foreign-owned media conglomerate that has no interest whatsoever in their well-being. In fact, just the opposite, since it thrives on fear and conflict.

In the same position, Democrats will jump over their mothers to adopt Republican ideas because Americans can't deal with obnoxious children, which is why we had to send Super Nanny over there.

The Democrats are incredible pussies. It is inconceivable that they can take a minor victory, like the health care bill, which is made up almost entirely of things that nearly every American wants, and then run away from it screaming like a woman.

The people are afraid of it because Fox News and insurance corporations are telling them it's bad, and rather than pointing out that their arguments are totally invalid, they try to "go with the flow" and...get washed out of Congress.

The Democrats need to find some evil overlords who profit from the well-being of the citizenry. Until then, they will keep sucking balls and cashing those checks from the same corporations fucking us up in the first place...that all those so-called independent teabaggers are supporting without understanding a scrap of what they're saying.

Except that Obama is black and that pisses them off.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 12-23-2010, 09:24 AM:
 
So, Obama did the net neutrality thing, and everyone on both sides seems pissed off. What do you think, Cal?

While I have been quite grumpy with Obama generally dragging his feet and making compromises that light my hair on fire, I have to admit that he's doing pretty much what he said he was going to do during the campaign, and making reasonable progress.

I suppose it actually is change I can believe in, in that it is not at all spectacular but is, on the whole, not too bad.

If you look at each of the things he's done as a step in the right direction, instead of a half-assed puss-out, he looks pretty good. If he gets 8 years, the country will be much better off than when it dropped like a steaming turd in his lap.

Well, as long as the entire economy is not sucked into a black hole.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-05-2011, 04:25 PM:
 
You Mr. K are a troll!
 

---

Posted by Automaton (Member # 1234) on 10-20-2011, 10:37 PM:
 
What black guy?
 

---

Posted by Fish (Member # 267) on 10-21-2011, 09:44 PM:
 
sup auto
 

---

Posted by Face (Member # 1916) on 10-22-2011, 04:43 PM:
 
Autobot: What black guy?

The black guy that K thinks is running America. For the record, a lot of misinformed liberals say a lot of things K says, such as calling darker skinned people black, but Obama is caucasian.

[ 10-22-2011, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Face ]
 

---

Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 11-06-2012, 11:20 PM:
 
4 more years
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 11-08-2012, 10:59 AM:
 
While I am not generally a fan of the twatting, LL Cool J has won the election with:

quote:

---

Don’t call it a comeback he’s been here 4 years.

---

Also it is childish to laugh at this but it's like high fructose corn syrup injected straight into the schadenfreude receptors of the brain.

Also also hooray for frightened and angry old white people dying off in sufficient numbers!
 

---

Posted by crowN (Member # 3415) on 11-12-2012, 02:45 AM:
 
Nice!! Now cut me a check, ya?
 

---

Posted by Mentar the Malady Monkey (Member # 1182) on 12-23-2012, 10:19 PM:
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Face:
Autobot: What black guy?

The black guy that K thinks is running America. For the record, a lot of misinformed liberals say a lot of things K says, such as calling darker skinned people black, but Obama is caucasian.

---

No. This is stupid and wrong. Obama is half black. Since "black" is usually used to mean "people of at least partial sub-Saharan African descent who identify as 'black'," Obama is black.
 

---

Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 12-25-2012, 10:31 PM:
 
on christmas day, thread is risen
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 10-29-2013, 04:43 PM:
 
Hooray!

Link
 

---

Posted by Face (Member # 1916) on 10-30-2013, 05:57 AM:
 
Mentar. I'm not wrong. Obama is Caucasian and your answer just ignored my post entirely. Caucasian people look like Obama. Also, I'm not stupid. I know when people are caucaisian and Obama qualifies as one whether you like it or not, and I think you know this, but don't want to admit it.
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 11-06-2013, 08:26 AM:
 
It depends on what the definition of "is" is.
 

---

Posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax (Member # 13) on 11-12-2014, 01:05 PM:
 
Bump!

For those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it
 

---

Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 11-12-2014, 02:15 PM:
 
I thought of this thread when I heard about Obama's net neutrality thing the other day. Thanks for knocking the thread to the top of the list so I don't have to waste a few more seconds than it took to write this sentence searching for it.

Anyway, I wonder if Obama will actually do something about it this time. There was some kind of krap going on between the FCC and the courts, but it was too boring to pay attention to long enough to find out wtf was really going on. The appropriate nerds seem to be excited about this one, so maybe yay. Or not.

I wonder if Democrats will ever figure out that the majority of people support their positions, but no one will ever take them seriously if they are too pussly to say them out loud. How many times do they have to be clobbered by racist sociopaths before they realize that what people really seem to want is someone who knows what they stand for, even if that what is stupid and bad for everyone.

Apologizing for Obamacare is world class douchebaggery.

Also hello.
 

---

Posted by Mr.E (Member # 696) on 12-09-2014, 12:23 PM:
 
Obamacare blows but it's an improvement over before, plus it's the best we're gonna get with the "racist sociopaths" poopooing over anything and everything that would help anybody in this country that doesn't have millions in the bank already.

The real question is how did they manage to coax all those poor people on their side who seem all too eager to fight against their own self-interests? Man I hate people sometimes.
 

---