Disgruntled yet? Scared? Enraged? (in Debates)
September 30 2009 2:33 AM EDT
you should be.
so instead of talking with the US General in charge in Iraq...
The world has to be laughing at the US. I'm in utter disbelief with the happenings going on.
Oh and in other news..... how about the public school disgrace/madness going on?
September 30 2009 2:38 AM EDT
(man they've done a good job getting rid of the video online with McChrystal, anyone who has seen it able to find/link it?)
Operation: Munich! Almost fun thinking of the possibilities.
September 30 2009 6:36 AM EDT
Unfortunately this is what happens when you elect a "community organizer" with no real world experience to the most powerful office in the land.
Someone who has never run a business, never had a real job, never had real world experience.
It is very different in the real world than in the ivory tower of academics.
Hopefully we can get rid of the majority he has in congress in 13 months.
And get rid of him in 3 years.
September 30 2009 6:45 AM EDT
Yes, because GWBush was totally working at MacDonalds at 16, right?
September 30 2009 7:02 AM EDT
It is weird that Obama is going to the Olympic committee. I wouldn't expect that to be a priority.
On the video though-
Jon Stewart's comments:
"All right, so that's one school in New Jersey. Obama had nothing to do with it. It occurred during black history month, just after the inauguration. It was part of a program saluting other presidents as well, and parents were notified of the lyrics beforehand, and there were no complaints before the show, during the show, or after the show."
I've only verified the part that said it was during Black history month, but still if it's true that parents were notified beforehand and that there were no complaints, it's hardly madness.
September 30 2009 7:10 AM EDT
September 30 2009 7:25 AM EDT
So, GWB took the US into a war in Iraq under false pretenses, and into one in Afghanistan that has all the potential of turning into Vietnam II (the one without John Rambo to save the day), and you're complaining that Obama is meeting with the Olympics people? The world (or at least, those parts of it that haven't been incensed or alienated by years of neo-con foreign policy) may well be laughing at the US, but not for the reasons you're implying...
And the public schools? Children going without books, or qualified teachers, or without food or medical care - that's a disgrace.
September 30 2009 8:49 AM EDT
"The world has to be laughing at the US."
The world HAS been laughing at the USA between 2000 and 2008.
Now it's laughing far less than before.
"It is very different in the real world than in the ivory tower of academics."
Yeah... well... true. However, the problem is not that the idealistic world should be more like the real world, but the other way around.
The world is still laughing at the US. Just b/c Bush was a crappy president doesn't exclude Obama from being a bad one. I laugh every time someone says "Oh yeah, well look how Bush screwed up." No crap, he was a crappy president. Obama actually had a chance for me to approve of him in one area, foreign affairs. But, so far he's not doing so hot at that either. If people around the world aren't laughing at us right now, they *SHOULD* be. Also, as an aside, if Obama screws up in Afghanistan, it will be by making the same mistake Bush did, not getting involved enough. If you want more info you can CM me, I don't feel like educating close minded people who don't listen. Both Bush AND Obama could be not so great presidents... which one was, and one is heading that way.
September 30 2009 12:28 PM EDT
And here I was thinking the actual mistake was getting involved at all in the first place... and not getting out as soon as possible once you had gotten in.
September 30 2009 12:52 PM EDT
Well the cat is out of the bag. Let us blame Bush, ok.
Obama promised to fix it all and has yet to even start on a plan to do that. Chatting with the Afghan general 1 time in 60 days is not a good thing.
So yes, I am very scared.
Obama is doing exactly what Bush did, under committing troops to Afghanistan (with Bush it was Iraq). I hope it doesn't take him 6 years to realize his mistake.
September 30 2009 1:57 PM EDT
Back to the first post, Kevlar's post:
1) Yes, I am very scared Obama has not chatted with our commander in the Afghan theater but 1 time in 70 days.
2) Yes, instead of staying home with many things going on, he took an excursion to Denmark to pitch the Olympics for Chicago. The same city he likely owes his career to. That great non-corrupt Chicago political machine.
3) Politics and religion should be out of school. Having young kids singing Obama is great etc.. is not what I want taught in the public school system. Kids should have a range of idea and not be subject to premature premade thoughts. The principal of the school is an Obama fanatic, well known for her undying support for him. If I was a parent of a kid in that school, I would be fuming mad.
What happened with Bush is now over. Good or Bad, now Obama promised to clean up the "mess". And he is doing one hell of a crappy job.
I can guess after his only term in office, he will be remembered as worse than Carter. A truly hard achievement. But one he can strive to accomplish.
September 30 2009 2:21 PM EDT
"What happened with Bush is now over. Good or Bad, now Obama promised to clean up the "mess". And he is doing one hell of a crappy job."
So if he had a month in office for every year Bush had and could not fix the problem he is doing a crappy job?
I am not the most informed person around, but I know in general it takes longer to fix the problem than it did to create it...
September 30 2009 2:23 PM EDT
And if Obama was doing things to lead me to believe he was on the right track, posts and critiques like this would not occur.
So you believe that speaking with your Afghan general 1 time in over 2 months is a good thing? Something that reassures you our troops are in capable hands?
Move to debates, as this is obviously a political debate, even though it seems as though some of you would rather this not be for some strange reason.
Why are the conservative members of cb here working themselves into a frenzy the likes of which I have not seen since the liberal frenzy under Bush?
I mean jeez, it's like you guys watch TV and just mirror the outrage of whatever the TV guys say, come on you guys are smarter then that. I guess that's just my own viewpoint coming out though.
I don't think Obama is nearly as idealistic now that he is president, probably a bit more pragmatic, which makes sense but is a bit disappointing. I think Bush was a disappointing president all around because of his lack of finesse in dealing with all the problems that came up during his tenure.
My view is that watching pundits on MSNBC, Fox News or CNN and then parroting their viewpoints is intellectually lazy, especially when you are pushing their opinions as some kind of unmitigated fact.
September 30 2009 2:57 PM EDT
I appreciate your input, but give the conservatives enough credit to form their own opinions on the man.
And not "parrot" the views of Fox, MSNBC or whatever.
I am glad you feel as you do about Obama, but respect how I feel about him.
I hate seeing this country go down a very precarious road from which we may never recover. With so much debt my children will be unable to get out of. And a third rate health care system as a result.
I respected Bush as he at least kept this country safe. No attacks on American soil occurred since 9/11, with many plots thwarted.
And the very first post was a political post, nothing changed in my view the entire thread.
September 30 2009 2:57 PM EDT
"So you believe that speaking with your Afghan general 1 time in over 2 months is a good thing? Something that reassures you our troops are in capable hands?"
Not at all, it is just that every time I see posts/articles about current events they seem, to me at least, that a large number of the people supposed to be doing the "thinking" in this country, not just administration, but the critics and advisors as well, seem to think Obama just decided to leave his magic wand at home and if he could be bothered to bring it into work then one wave would set everything straight...
(sorry about the rambling sentence)
Large problems take a long time, Afghanistan for example, has any one come out of that country victorious? Ever?
I am not defending the current situation just trying to point out that it will be a long hard road and personally I do not think anyone could fix these problems in 1 year, let alone 1 term in office...
September 30 2009 3:00 PM EDT
These are complex problems. However none of the steps I have seen Obama take installs confidence he has any idea what he is doing.
September 30 2009 3:01 PM EDT
"I respected Bush as he at least kept this country safe. No attacks on American soil occurred since 9/11, with many plots thwarted."
Okay not going to let that one slide...
Playing pass the buck does not equal solving the problem, we got into a war not involved with that situation at all and were basically told we were "winning" until that last year or so of his term...
Now we are in 2 wars, I cannot take a water bottle or a lighter on a plane and it is someone else's problem...
September 30 2009 3:07 PM EDT
The Afghan war was a correct one in my opinion. We went directly after the people/country responsible for an attack on US soil.
The one in Iraq, based upon the information at the time was correct.
The execution of each was very poor. That I 100% agree. Both were and currently are mismanaged.
But Mr. Obama ran on fixing these problems and has done nothing that I can see to instill confidence that he knows what he is doing.
Say what you want about Bush. Obama appears to be way out of his league. Which is what most conservatives expected given his lack of real world and political experience.
I see 3 links on this post, one about Obama only talking to his commander once which seems important enough, but then I see 2 about silly things that only really serve to push me away from any serious discussion here. Some of you here seem to implicitly endorse political drivel as something to be taken seriously, how am I supposed to feel about that?
September 30 2009 3:12 PM EDT
If and when you have kids, you will understand the 3rd part of Kevlar's post. Something which is integral to the seperation of church and state and school. While it can be conceived as drivel to you, it takes on a lot of importance for those of us with young children.
The 2nd topic is important, perhaps not to you, to show how Mr. Obama's priorities are so messed up. Just like tackling health care reform when the economy is in shambles.
So while these points are not important to you, please to not berate those of us to which they are.
I'm not outraged, I'm disappointed Fex.
The problem lies in the fact that the position of president doesn't go to great men, it goes to men who are great at not having an opinion on anything.
September 30 2009 4:03 PM EDT
Overall that is a great statement.
However, Ronald Reagan would have a few words to say about that :)
September 30 2009 4:10 PM EDT
the problem with politics is that anyone at a high enough position to actually make a difference is corrupt, they just haven't been caught yet, that or they do it in the open in the form of "contributions" bah its just sickening to think that every election you can only try and choose the lesser of the 2 evils (both of which stunk IMO)our political system is in shambles and should be cleansed.
and if i remember right reagan's response would have been that he couldn't recall ;-)
September 30 2009 4:12 PM EDT
.... to be fair Ranger, the debt was already so big that your children would never see the bottom of it...
... and it has been that way since before Obama or Bush were in office.
1. Or Obama has such fate in that general and is confident that the general in charge doesn't need a baby sit telling him what to do.
2. Wants that Olympics in chicago since the Olympics bring in a huge sum of money and employment to the locals. And IMO what that city so needs.
So no, if you're a good leader and you set out a game plan that anyone can follow you don't need much contact.
September 30 2009 4:32 PM EDT
I guess in all wars, presidents had so much faith in their generals they never did speak with them other than bimonthly updates.
Yea, that's the ticket!!
And knowing a few people from Chicago, they really do not want the Olympics with all the costs that the common people occur from all the expansion and building that has to proceed.
But the higher ups, o boy do they get rich. And it is just a coincidence that it is Chicago with all his political "friends". A good use of time by the president.
September 30 2009 5:35 PM EDT
lol, it only took two words to turn this thread into a joke - "Ronald Reagan."
edyit hit the nail right on the head.
September 30 2009 5:44 PM EDT
"Just like tackling health care reform when the economy is in shambles."
If you've been paying attention at all, you would have heard that health care reform IS part of the economic recovery. Without it, our economy wouldn't be able to handle the rising cost of health "care" in the coming years.
How to do this is where we disagree. You call Obama's plan "3rd rate health care." Funny, that's how I'd rate our current system.
September 30 2009 5:45 PM EDT
And Ronald Reagan sucked.
September 30 2009 5:48 PM EDT
UK Generals are saying the same thing over here. There's not enough troops etc... Our top officer in Afghanistan just resigned.
The fact that Obama is going to Denmark. That's a cheap shot and not relevant... Life has to go on to a certain extent and Prime Ministers or Presidents must continue to engage in "routine" activities. At least he wasn't cracking jokes on the golf course...
Speaking to the General once in 70 days. Fair enough, there's people in the administration that handle communication between the President and his staff. Who knows how often communication has passed between Obama and this obviously disgruntled General.
Ranger: The Afghan war was a correct one in my opinion. We went directly after the people/country responsible for an attack on US soil.
I think a response to the act of terrorism against many countries civilians in the US was warranted. Unfortunately I think the retaliation that occurred has led to significantly more innocent deaths outside of the US than 911 led inside.
Afghan's and Iraqui's lives are just as worthy as British or Americans or anyone else...
September 30 2009 6:03 PM EDT
I agree Beee.
But how many innocent civilians were murdered by the Taliban or by Saddam? Both countries are enjoying freedoms never before experienced by their people.
Many more than have died in the 2 wars currently in operation.
September 30 2009 6:55 PM EDT
September 30 2009 6:58 PM EDT
Well if over 50% of the country hates the man, you will get a few crazy people who take things too far.
Abortion doctor killers anyone? There are wackos on both sides.
The problem is over 50% of the country does not hate the man. The problem is there are main stream media outlets publicly promoting and encouraging animosity and misdirected hatred towards him. There are lots of otherwise perfectly reasonable, however misinformed, people in this country that are being whipped into a frenzy simply because people are easy to manipulate, especially when you appeal to their ignorance.
If you disagree with the fact that people are easy to manipulate, I'll tell you what, if I don't have any responsibility to be accurate, honest or think critically, just give me 10 million dollars. I bet I can have an angry mob in front of your house by the end of the week.
October 1 2009 2:54 PM EDT
"The problem is there are main stream media outlets publicly promoting and encouraging animosity and misdirected hatred towards him."
+1 But you made a whoopsy. It's "outlet" -- singular, not plural.
October 1 2009 3:13 PM EDT
If you really truly believe that the animosity is generated soley by Foxnews and they are paying people to protest against his agenda, you are completely mistaken.
We are not misinformed. In fact, the "mainstream" media is in Obama's back pocket and they are the ones covering up all the problems with his administration.
You sir, are too blinded by your unwavering dietification of the man to really see his agenda. To take America from a capitalistic to a socialistic society. Where there is no incentive to succeed and incentive to let the government pay your way.
It seems you likely also believe anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies are racist.
October 1 2009 3:31 PM EDT
"If you really truly believe that the animosity is generated solely by Fox News and they are paying people to protest against his agenda, you are completely mistaken."
Neither of which is what he really said.
"In fact, the "mainstream" media is in Obama's back pocket and they are the ones covering up all the problems with his administration."
"You sir, are too blinded by your unwavering deification of the man to really see his agenda."
Translation: "anyone who disagrees with me is an Obama Worshipper!" This is one of Ranger's usual attacks on anyone at all on the left. Just wait until he starts calling you lazy and asking about your welfare check.
"It seems you likely also believe anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies are racist."
He never implied that, but if you look at the picture again you'll see that is is true for some of his detractors, which I've been trying to get through to you for months now.
October 1 2009 3:35 PM EDT
"It seems you likely also believe anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies are racist. "
Where was that said? read through the thread twice just now and couldn't find where that was said or even implied...
October 1 2009 3:43 PM EDT
Read Verifex's latest post to understand mine.
Or better yet:
There are a lot of people who really dislike the direction Obama is taking this country. And are getting together to state that dissatisfaction.
It is in NO way propagated by "main stream media outlets publicly promoting and encouraging animosity and misdirected hatred towards him."
And the people who are against his policies are some of the most educated and informed people in the country. They are not "misinformed, people in this country that are being whipped into a frenzy simply because people are easy to manipulate, especially when you appeal to their ignorance."
October 1 2009 3:53 PM EDT
So all the other major media outlets are wrong, as Fox is the only reliable source of major tv news?
And you don't think Fox is targeting the president in any way?
Regardless of Fox being a well-known right-leaning station?
dear lord... this is why we can't have nice things
October 1 2009 4:02 PM EDT
I think the left wing media outlets are not covering stories that could hurt Obama as they are left wing media outlets-duh.
Fox is the only right wing media outlet.
We can chat about Van Jones and the lack/no coverage on the "mainstream" media outlets. Or the lack of coverage of many of the problems in the Obama administration. Including all these czars who report to nobody but Obama who have plenty of authority. And please do not get me started about the lack of coverage in the Acorn scandal.
I found it disgusting the disparity in coverage during the general election. Obama was covered by the left wing media outlets over 3x McCain. And that was not just pure luck. It was intentional.
So, yes, Foxnews is the only station covering the president as the fourth estate should. When he does something that is more moderate than his current agenda, I am sure Foxnews will give kudos when deserved. But nothing he has done, or is doing has been moderate. It is all ultra liberal. And very bad for the future and present of the country.
Those people who dislike Obama are not uninformed, or zombies of Fox. They are intelligent people who know what is happening and wish to stop the Obama express. Before we end up like all the other socialistic countries and become a welfare state.
October 1 2009 4:07 PM EDT
"There are a lot of people who really dislike the direction Obama is taking this country."
That is true and fair. However, there were plenty of people who disliked pretty much everything that came out of the past eight years, and we didn't act like a bunch of lunatics over it. This time, we won. Learn to live with it like we did from 2000 through 2008.
"It is in NO way propagated by "main stream media outlets publicly promoting and encouraging animosity and misdirected hatred towards him.""
Fox, Limbaugh, conservative newspapers and magazines. And worst of all, a vicious and deceitful "grassroots" smear campaign. Sure, that last part isn't very mainstream, but it sure is widespread. Have you ever read some of those hateful conservative e-mails that are sent to MILLIONS of people every day? I have.
And calling the liberal side of the media the "mainstream" media and the conservative half something different is dishonest. The media has both liberal and conservative outlets. One isn't more "mainstream" than the other. The conservatives just like to use that word for the liberal half to justify their persecution complex, which is a fabrication they invented to drum up support.
"And the people who are against his policies are some of the most educated and informed people in the country."
Birth certificates? Death Panels? Sarah Palin??? These people are not only uneducated and ill-informed, most of them are chronically stupid.
I'm not saying the left doesn't have its idiots, but the conservative movement in this country thrives on the stupidity of its followers and their unwillingness to learn or even pay attention.
October 1 2009 4:13 PM EDT
"So, yes, Foxnews is the only station covering the president as the fourth estate should."
In your opinion, did they do as well during the Bush administration?
"When he does something that is more moderate than his current agenda, I am sure Foxnews will give kudos when deserved. But nothing he has done, or is doing has been moderate. It is all ultra liberal."
Actually, one of the main criticisms from the left is that he has been too moderate and not liberal enough (see, we criticize him too). We got a hard right shift from Bush in the previous eight years with ZERO outreach to the left or even a promise to meet in the middle. Obama has done the opposite, and us liberals are rather ticked off about it.
"Before we end up like all the other socialistic countries and become a welfare state."
Sentences like this are what proves the right is uninformed.
October 1 2009 4:15 PM EDT
"And worst of all, a vicious and deceitful "grassroots" smear campaign"
I guess that is the point we disagree on most.
I see the people actually participating in these grassroot campaigns and they are nothing like the lunatics at the fringe of each party.
They are hard working honest people who have an acute grasp of the issues. And do not want to see this country develop into a welfare state. We want to see this country succeed as it has for 200+ years. As a great capitalistic society where there is incentive to succeed. Not a society where you count on the government to provide everything.
But did you yourself not even see the disparity in coverage between the 2 candidates during the general election? C'mon please admit that there was a definite disparity there.
"the conservative movement in this country thrives on the stupidity of its followers and their unwillingness to learn or even pay attention."
I can see your preset in your idea of what a conservative is. I know you have a wrong opinion, but until you open your mind about it, there is not much more we can discuss. I can tell you almost all the conservatives I know are hard working, honest, well educated people. As most physicians are conservatives, I guess you can have your medical care from some of the most stupid people in the country :)
October 1 2009 4:24 PM EDT
When Bush was president, Fox was not a Rah Rah cheerleader for him.
In fact, they did not like quite a few of his policies. But mostly stated positive things.
Unlike the other new stations.
Which is good for American, good discussion without degeneration into.. well chaos.
However, to state that those in the grassroots campaign are stupid and unwilling to learn is just plain ignorant. We are entitled to our opinions just like the liberals are. And I respect that you have your opinions. Respect that I and other conservatives have ours. And give us credit for making an informed decision.
We are not idiots, do not make us out to be one just because we disagree with you.
October 1 2009 4:44 PM EDT
"I guess that is the point we disagree on most."
I'm referring to the messages that claim Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist who isn't an american citizen, and who wants to euthanize old people and completely demolish the western economy in favor of a hard clutch to the extreme, socialist or communist left (you know, rather than restoring it to the mixed economy in the center where it belongs).
Or the ones with blatant racist imagery, like those depicting him as a primate. Or the nazi photos (I can't even figure out the rationale behind those).
I've seen these messages. I've read them. I received them in my inbox. My own relatives on the right sent me this trash.
I'm not referring to honest people on either side taking part in their government and getting involved. It's the kind of willful dishonesty, and yes, the racism, that makes me ashamed of that part of my country. An intelligent, well expressed difference in policy is fine, but that's not what your side offers.
"But did you yourself not even see the disparity in coverage between the 2 candidates during the general election? C'mon please admit that there was a definite disparity there."
I watched mostly liberal sources and Fox News (it was the only American news channel we had in the Philippines). The disparity for each was what you would expect for each. Guess who Fox gave the more favorable coverage to? They even said Palin won the VP debate!
"I can see your preset in your idea of what a conservative is. I know you have a wrong opinion, but until you open your mind about it, there is not much more we can discuss."
I can change the word conservative to liberal, paste the same sentences here, and it would be at least as equally valid for you.
"As most physicians are conservatives, I guess you can have your medical care from some of the most stupid people in the country"
You prove my point, again and again.
Oh, and I'd prefer that than what the REAL stupid people in the country offer me: no health care at all.
October 1 2009 4:48 PM EDT
"When Bush was president, Fox was not a Rah Rah cheerleader for him. In fact, they did not like quite a few of his policies. But mostly stated positive things."
They were his cheerleaders except for the very few times when he did not cling to the ultra-right, like on immigration.
"Unlike the other new stations."
So it was ok to give Bush favorable coverage, but not Obama. I see.
"Which is good for American, good discussion without degeneration into.. well chaos."
Like most conservative new outlets.
"We are not idiots, do not make us out to be one just because we disagree with you."
Take your own advice, please.
October 1 2009 4:56 PM EDT
The liberals are not misinformed and not up to stroking the fires with heated stupid rhetoric:
The Republican have a health care plan. However, every amendment to every bill in the various committees was struck down by party line vote. So the conservative anger is very real and very noticable.
The Democrats are even considering the reconciliation option. Which would be the worst thing they can do.
October 1 2009 5:02 PM EDT
"I'm referring to the messages that claim Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist who isn't an american citizen, and who wants to euthanize old people and completely demolish the western economy in favor of a hard clutch to the extreme, socialist or communist left (you know, rather than restoring it to the mixed economy in the center where it belongs).
Or the ones with blatant racist imagery, like those depicting him as a primate. Or the nazi photos (I can't even figure out the rationale behind those). "
I 100% agree these type people should be drawn, quartered and their remains buried in the deepest parts of the Oceans.
However, you get 100k people together and you will get a few loonies. On both sides.
However most conservatives are NOT as Verifex tried to state misinformed loonies who are easy to manipulate especially when one appeals to their ignorance.
And then implying that one can gather a mob of conservates with money in his last paragraph.
That is just insulting to about 50% of America. We are people who have real reservations to the direction the country and its future is going. Just like the liberals had with W. To dismiss this as anything else is just stupid.
October 1 2009 5:05 PM EDT
And if you want a nice double standard about the media, just look at all the play the Obama post received with him made up as the Joker. OMG the indignation by the left.
But they all forgot the same thing was done to W, and that got almost no play in the media.
Yes, hard to believe that the left has called W a Nazi, baby killer, etc... The same things that the so called "grass root zombies" are saying about Obama.
It is just the main stream media underplays it when it is a liberal doing the name calling and grossly overplays it when someone does it to Obama.
Looking at that picture I asked my self two questions:
Why on earth do people think that socialism is the same as nazies? and that it is islamo-ism?
And are people afraid of some actual change?
Why if I didn't know any better I would swear the USA is packed with racists, idiots and narrow minded people.
lol all of those signs have huge spelling mistakes. You guys might need an educational reform too.
October 1 2009 5:40 PM EDT
"You guys might need an educational reform too."
Actually we do, but not in the way often discussed by either party.
October 1 2009 5:40 PM EDT
I see posters for banning Acorn, Honk if you bought a flatscreen, no to amnesty, do not mortgage my children's future among others.
I agree with those thoughts.
Esp the banning of Acorn.
As I stated, there are extremists on both sides. But I see quite a lot of logical posters in that collage.
October 1 2009 5:43 PM EDT
"Honk if you bought a flatscreen"
Which is exactly what is NOT happening with the economic reforms brought on by Democrats.
Ill-informed and unwilling to learn...
October 1 2009 5:44 PM EDT
nah. "racists, idiots and narrow minded people" are simply more vocal/newsworthy than others. probably because they're so darn funny.
All this antagonistic behavior from both sides is rather stupid. Both sides do it and deny it and are easily swayed by half truths or under emphasis or over emphasis. Rather than looking and saying 1 side is wrong or 1 side is right you should be looking at what works or rather what doesn't work.
From what I have seen both over in my stay in Iraq and back here in the states, the way we are fighting over in the middle east isn't working. We are essentially making NO progress. Also our current health care and the state of the economy is not working well either.
For the middle east. Maintaining the way we are now is just going to aggravate the problems there. Sending more troops over to Afghanistan will help decrease the stress and help to maintain a tighter control over the area but it is not going to solve the main problem with the area. We are basically conquerors who are trying to put our own culture and ideals on top of theirs. They don't want this nor are they about to readily change. Sure we may be able to get them to do it on the surface but this won't change anything deep down. The only thing I have seen that we have been successful at is in corrupting the children. That is it. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will change fundamentally for a long time. It won't be until those children that we have more or less "westernized" are older and in the main stream of the society. This won't happen for another 15-20 years.
Sure we can stay forcing those countries into what we want them to be. But that is exactly what we are doing "forcing" them. Or we could leave. Straight up and leave, there would be a massive period of chaos, things would settle and everything would return to what it was. Except, that in 15-20 years I believe that things would change to more or less how we want them now precisely because we have corrupted their children and have been making sure that they receive a good education.
One more thing about the middle east is that it is a logistical Nightmare. We are positively pouring money into there. We are giving Iraqis all kinds of money for projects, that because of their attitude they don't even know. We pay a large portion of their troops, even though the Iraqi government has more than enough money to cover it. We pay the government. We are the ones carrying the burden over there in order for them to have to do NOTHING. All they have to do is sit back and relax and let the Americans take care of everything.
Now for health care in the states. There must be a reason why basically EVERY other first world country has a UNIVERSAL health care system. Our health care is not universal, there are a large % of people who are without it and many people who lose it when things go bad. But for some reason ours is the most expensive. I have met quite a few people who leave the country in order to get better health care. There is something fundamentally wrong about that. People leaving the states to get a better health care means that we, as a country, are doing something wrong.
Other countries health care systems seem to be working better than ours so what is wrong with taking their ideas since we already know they work. We can then throw on our own twists to try to improve them but it would certainly help. We are a country that has grown from being a mix from many different countries with their many different ideas. Why not take more good ideas from other countries to keep ourselves the best. We have succeeded from it before no reason we can't do it again.
"Which is exactly what is NOT happening with the economic reforms brought on by Democrats."
You are still forgetting that most of the world blames the US for this economic crisis. And that these reforms weren't needed if the last administration did its job.
Of course those two wars didn't help much either and the fact that the last administration didn't started with these reforms in fear of the reactions it would get from the general public. No the last administration shifted all those problems right to the next one. Its job is now to fix the crisis which, according to several analysts, will take another 10 years before its actually fixed.
So be ready to stare at that old TV for a while, buddy your not buying a flatscreen next year!
October 1 2009 6:15 PM EDT
"You are still forgetting that most of the world blames the US for this economic crisis. And that these reforms weren't needed if the last administration did its job."
I'm not forgetting that at all. it just wasn't relevant to my post at the time.
"So be ready to stare at that old TV for a while, buddy your not buying a flat screen next year!"
Very true. I'll keep the current flat screen I bought years before.
October 1 2009 7:29 PM EDT
You could afford a flat screen tv, even years ago when they were more expensive, and yet could not afford healthcare?
Only in America we let people make decisions like that. And that is a great thing.
And all that data about our system being worse than xxxx for this or that is so skewed. America has the highest survival rates for cancer and heart disease in the world.
And the reason the world has technology such as MRI/CT and new drugs such as the latest antibiotics is the free market system.
Once we go to universal health care, forget innovation as there will be little profit.
And all this chat about all these people without healthcare is utter garbage.
I have never refused care based upon a persons inability to pay. And neither has the hospitals I work with. We do get plenty of people who refuse to pay their bills and would rather pay for their cigarettes or beer or flat screen TVs. This is a fact as I have first hand knowledge of this.
October 1 2009 7:41 PM EDT
"You could afford a flat screen tv, even years ago when they were more expensive, and yet could not afford healthcare?"
At the time I had both.
"I have never refused care based upon a persons inability to pay."
But you still bill the crap out of them and ruin then financially?
"I have never refused care based upon a persons inability to pay."
Hippocratic oath, you can't
But the hospital will slap a huge bill their way :)
Ranger are you afraid that the hospitals will be formed into state run hospitals?
It seems to me if everyone has a health care insurance, the hospitals will actually make more profit. As do the insurance companies. Hey another 100million people that need insurance, be it state sponsored. As for less innovation. Not really, patents will do that they only last 6 years.
October 1 2009 7:43 PM EDT
"At the time I had both."
Let me add: my ability to pay, nor whether I had coverage or not has ever changed my politics on the issue.
October 1 2009 8:00 PM EDT
I have written off hundreds of thousands of dollars in Radiology fees in my career-so far.
If someone cannot pay, we work with them.
And there are those that just never pay, those get written off.
And where are you getting 100M people who need insurance Bres? Highest estimates are 45M with most real studies quoting 20-25M without insurance.
And forget about patents. Who will bother to invent new things knowing they will not make a profit from it. Do you realize it costs on average 100M USD for a new drug to make it to the market? Same thing with new medical technology.
"Do you realize it costs on average 100M USD for a new drug to make it to the market? Same thing with new medical technology."
Probably even more, but then you have 6 years in which you can monopolize the market and ask stupid high prices for your drugs and your probably get that 100M USD returned in the first year of sales..
"Who will bother to invent new things knowing they will not make a profit from it"
For pharmaceuticals: Bayer, schering plough, AKZO nobel, just to name a few.
Because of that 6 year monopoly companies do it.
You might want to read this: http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
I noticed that your health care bill is far higher then what I pay each month. In dollars I pay roughly 90 a month and that is including dental, alternative medicine, physiotherapy, second opinions and a bunch of stuff.
October 1 2009 9:12 PM EDT
I think I should make one point very clear:
I am not saying health care in the US is not broken.
It has many problems. There are ways to cover 98+% of those legally entitled to medical care, without blowing the current system up and enacting a government controlled plan.
Key among them is the government's past proven ability to be inept when running a business. From incompetence to graft, the government is ill equipped to run a business.
The only thing it should do right is having and using a military to ensure our safety. And W could not even do that right. I really have to hope Obama does better. For all our sakes.
There are ways to fix the current medical system without the government running it. And how I feel is shared by a lot of conservatives.
I was only against and posting against a government type of system.
Fixing the current system would be far better for everyone. At least that is my belief, as a physician.
didn't the republican party have a chance to fix the system themselves with the last presidency when they were in control?
do they now have an alternate plan for fixing the system?
i have seen no alternate legislation from them other than a vague statement on their website.
October 1 2009 11:49 PM EDT
"If someone cannot pay, we work with them."
I'm interested in hearing how this works.
Article in the Guardian
This is why tweaking and reforming the existing system is so difficult. I'd like to hear how Ranger, our resident health care provider, feels about insurance companies buying off legislators, and such things from the article:
The health industry permeates the process in other ways. At Baucus's side, drafting much of the wording of the reform, was Liz Fowler, a senate committee counsel whose last position was vice-president of the country's largest health insurer, Wellpoint, which stands to be a principal beneficiary of the new law.
Reform groups say vast spending, and the threat of a lot more being poured into advertisements against the administration, has helped drug companies ensure there will be no cap on the prices they charge for medicines ‑ one of the ways the White House had hoped to keep down surging healthcare costs.
October 2 2009 2:37 PM EDT
I feel the same way as I do about Acorn buying and manufacturing votes for Obama in the election.
The system is corrupt, we all know that. On both sides.
But when you are ready to get into a civilized discussion about how I feel the healthcare system should be fixed, I would welcome a new thread about it.
Till then, I'm out of this one.
October 2 2009 2:40 PM EDT
"I'm interested in hearing how this works."
So I guess I'm not getting an answer on this.
Dude, I just got stonewalled!
October 2 2009 2:50 PM EDT
We have a sliding scale of payments based upon a persons income.
And in those cases where a person cannot pay, we almost always write the bill off.
All the hospitals I work with do the same thing as do most of the physicians I know.
The key is to go to the hospital or to my group and state your financial difficulty. Not to ignore the bills. Then they go to a collections agency and it becomes far more difficult.
As I stated, my group has written off hundreds of thousands in fees over the past few years due to a person's inability to pay. And we have never not performed a radiological study if an emergency due to a patients ability or inability to pay.
And if someone goes to the ER, there are laws to prevent the ER or hospital from denying you care if you are truly ill. EMTALA is the set of laws that are taken very seriously at all hospitals.
Again, I am not stating there are no problems with the system. But there are better ways to fix any problems then go to a government run system. The government always messes things up.
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002t93">Disgruntled yet? Scared? Enraged?</a>