Loaded-Gun.Com - Anti-Social.Com's Rejects!
General Category => Politics, Philosophy, News and/or Current Affairs => Topic started by: Zoomie on September 05, 2009, 09:45:54 AM
-
So, like every other president in recent history, Obama will be giving an address on Tuesday aimed specifically at children in school, and schools were asked to tune in by Education Secretary Anne Duncan. But of course the right wing gentry are pushing a boycott.
Oh the hilarity...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112552947 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112552947)
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/04/the-history-behind-opposition-to-obama-speech-to-students/ (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/04/the-history-behind-opposition-to-obama-speech-to-students/)
So. You want to argue that this controversy is NOT based in racism? Obama will say the same things every president is the past has said: Study hard, stay in school, go to college and make a difference.
So where is the controversy?
-
He's not an American ?
-
Dude, they've either given up or they're gone from LG. Welcome to today.
-
I wasent thinking of them when I posted. Just going for the cheap line.
-
But seriously I think that's the argument. Or it's related to that anyway. There are two things the right are all twisted up about. Firstly Obama hasn't released the text of the speech he's going to deliver. Parents are concerned that he will be just throwing so much liberal bias at the kids in such a slick way that they'll all be brainwashed. The number of times the word "brainwash" has been used on FOX has gone up some 500% in recent days. Secondly as it's intended to be shown in class, there is a lesson plan that Team Obama have put out for teachers to teach the children about bicameralism, checks and balances, the executive branch, voting, what it means to be American, etc. The text of the lesson plan has been made available to the public and after intense scrutiny the right have managed to find a problem for the 3rd grade lesson plan. Apparently Obama is asking 3rd grade teachers to instruct the children to "write a letter to Obama telling them how they can help him and the rest of the country." Seems harmless enough, sure, but doesn't that imply that they approve of him? If the kids didn't approve of him why would they wish to "help him?" Since 3rd graders lack the political savvy of their parents, the fear is that they will be brainwashed into approving of the President. He's taking a low road to victory by ruining the minds of children. I'm pulling my two daughters out of school this Tuesday and I urge you all to do the same!
-
Let's assume he isnt American (which incidentally, he is)... the world is full of good, smart, educated people of different races, nationalities and cultures, who cant hurt by trying to inspire kids.
The US right is living in the 1820's. It's fucking sad.
-
Not to mention that as Zoomie said, several other presidents have done this in the past without any problems.
It's the same people freaking out now about this school address who were saying "Kill him!" about Obama during the presidential race, who gave Cheney a 12% approval rating at the point of his exit from office, and who think Obama's a foreigner now. That 12% figure really sticks with me. Apparently there are 12% of the American population who are purely and strictly party-line non-thinkers. They just vote as they're told to.
-
You know, after 8 years of destroying the credibility and prestige of the Office of President of the United States of America, I would have thought that the right would have woken up.
But no, it appears.
-
You can't wake up when you think you're already awake and doing the right thing. They're called the right because you can't convince them that they AREN'T.
Fuck being a foreigner, there are the fringe who make up half of that 12% who think that because his father was black that he's not even HUMAN.
-
For the past 30 years, the pendulum has swung really far to the left and hasn't even began the swing back to the right yet. And by left, I mean more government controls and by right I mean liberty for the individual citizen.
And yeah, there's been a lot of soft racism getting a rigid boner ever since January 20, 2009.
-
That being the case, we still have a two party system. The assholes and the libertarians.
-
If the kids didn't approve of him why would they wish to "help him?"
Because, as these same right wing morons maintained throughout the Bush disaster of a presidency, he IS the president, and therefore it's unpatriotic to want him to fail.
-
two party system
The after-party is the one you want to attend.
-the Most Interesting Man in the World
-
The US right is living in the 1820's. It's fucking sad.
You're thinking of the Democrat party, which having failed to keep blacks on Southern plantations in the 19th century through violence, spent the 20th century turning their neighborhoods into new ones with welfare programs.
It's pathetic how everything always goes back to race... for the political left.
Past presidents have made speeches which were broadcast to students, which is not the same as what Obama is attempting.
Past presidents have sent messages to American youth which pretty amounted to, "stay in school, and don't do drugs", which is not what Obama is attempting here.
Only Obama's speech was intended to be accompanied by "study materials", drafted by the White House and loyal "educators".
Only Obama has professionally produced Hollywood videos featuring celebrities swearing their loyalty and "service" to Obama.
Not the country.
Not the constitution.
Obama.
And that is what this is about.
But hey, if we want to bring up race, how about that Van Jones? Now that's an unelected, extra-constitutional official I'd like to follow over the ramparts for the glory of the revolution!
It's a damn shame CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and all those other un-biased and wholly trust-worthy media outlets aren't covering his courageous stand against Whitey.
Not much coverage of John Holdren's glorious vision of a carefully managed population (http://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252184875&sr=8-1), either. A shame, really. There's a man the National Socialists (which we all know secretly make up the political right) could really get behind!
Oh, and check out this white racist Republican thug national socialist klansman threatening Dear Leader with hateviolencemurder!:
(http://206.47.170.43/channels/images/obama-gun-assault-rifle-456.jpg)
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/99517/thumbs/s-GUNS-large.jpg)
If MSNBC failed to spread Van Jones' message of unity and civility, at least they had the courage to expose this doubleplusbad Rethuglican whitedevil:
MSNBC: Gun-Toting Protesters are 'White' Racists... Black Guy with AR-15 Edited to Conceal his Race. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&feature=player_embedded#normal)
-
Past presidents have made speeches which were broadcast to students, which is not the same as what Obama is attempting.
Past presidents have sent messages to American youth which pretty amounted to, "stay in school, and don't do drugs", which is not what Obama is attempting here.
Only Obama's speech was intended to be accompanied by "study materials", drafted by the White House and loyal "educators".
Only Obama has professionally produced Hollywood videos featuring celebrities swearing their loyalty and "service" to Obama.
Not the country.
Not the constitution.
Obama.
And that is what this is about.
Woah! You actually think this is an attempted brainwashing? Since you seem to have it on good authority that a "stay in school, and don't do drugs" speech is not what Obama is attempting here, are we sure yet what it is that he is attempting? Is this part of his Communist agenda? I'm sure you're aware that Van Jones subscribed to the Communist cause in college. My country should be red white and blue, not just red, right!
It's a damn shame CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and all those other un-biased and wholly trust-worthy media outlets aren't covering his courageous stand against Whitey.
Well thank god for FOX, eh? They've been covering it hard. We could say they're the only ones who really give a damn about America, couldn't we? Them and Rush Limbaugh anyway.
-
And owned by an AUSTRALIAN!
-
Isn't it negros as opposed to negroes?
-
You say tomato, I say tomato.
-
You spell potato, Dan Qualye spells potatoe...
-
http://www.rent-a-negro.com/ (http://www.rent-a-negro.com/)
-
You're almost ruining it Kyle. You haven't said "nigger" since LG has been back.
-
You're right - I believe the only slur I have said is "kike". I am 28 man, it's not as amusing to throw around slurs as it used to be.
-
*sniff* our boy is all growed up!
-
since he got his dick wet.
-
I think someone picked up some brown sugar on Craigslist...
-
I love me some brown, now.
-
Yeah, young and dumb is no way to go through life, son.
But you can't tell them that...
-
You're thinking of the Democrat party, which having failed to keep blacks on Southern plantations in the 19th century through violence, spent the 20th century turning their neighborhoods into new ones with welfare programs.
blah, blah, blah ...
yada, yada, yada ...
Not much coverage of John Holdren's glorious vision of a carefully managed population either. A shame, really. There's a man the National Socialists (which we all know secretly make up the political right) could really get behind!
EXACTLY! And the only thing "they" can do is throw Race BACK up into your face... These so-called "non-racists" are OBSESSED with his race. EVERYthing boils down to YOU being a racist if you dare to disagree or point out FACT.
It's disgusting, to me, because it's created a fucking bunch of WHITE racists, who are racist about WHITE folks, and have to take any and everything back to Obozo being black, which, OH! Teh lulz!!!, HE ISN'T.
Folks point at our Constitution, which they are depending upon to protect their liberties, and they pooh-pooh the Eligibility Rules, on the one hand, but whom want their rights, also, never stopping to think that by just "letting this slide?" THEY are showing how willing they are to allow their Constitution to be ignored.
Nah, couldn't be that you're worried about the Constitution ~ you're a racist.
What about all of the crap with the Annenberg Foundation? ACORN? The mayor of Chicago? Have ANY of y'all checked any of that out? Of course, NONE of that was racist, those politicians grooming their "boy" in the ways of the white house.
You know, if ALL you can say is that "Oh, people are disagreeing just because he's black", and continuing to spout your ridiculous Racist Conspiracy theory, you really do need to look around a little.
Up until the "Teaching Materials" and Super-Stars PR'ing Obozo parts, i wouldn't have any problem with this.
Since WHEN does the Prez set educational goals? (This, folks, is what ignoring our Constitution is going to bring, for all of us) His speech to them, and a short discussion in the classroom regarding it, is all it NEEDS TO BE.
Heck, since WHEN does the Prez give speeches to LITTLE KIDS?? And why?
You know, i was pro-Bush ~ voted for him and all ~ but there came a time when i just could not ignore the accusations and proofs of his wrong-doings. There were Red Flags, EVERYWHERE, that, once i stopped looking the other way, and actually researched, HAD BEEN THERE, for all the world to see, just not where they expected to find it. (MSM -vs- Independent Reporting)
And i don't want Obozo out because i'm some sort of rabid racist, nor so that another repub can be put IN ~ i want him out so that a Constitutionalistic gov can be elected, hopefully rebuilding this house on that foundation.
-
Yeah. OK. Sure.
-
I seem to remember on 11th September 2001 that GW was sitting in a classroom of young children while they read books out loud when some aeroplanes smashed into the WTC in New York City.
By your logic, what the hell was GW doing there?
Reading the articles above, it appears to me that the Republicans are playing politics with a simple exercise for 3rd graders. Would the same questions be asked if the President of Liberia was asked to address a class of American 3rd graders?
Why shouldnt this POTUS set educational goals? GW did, and it appears that was one of his few successes.
-
Up until the "Teaching Materials" and Super-Stars PR'ing Obozo parts, i wouldn't have any problem with this.
Since WHEN does the Prez set educational goals? (This, folks, is what ignoring our Constitution is going to bring, for all of us) His speech to them, and a short discussion in the classroom regarding it, is all it NEEDS TO BE.
Can you explain what part of the teaching materials you are so concerned by and why? Here (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009) (and here (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10648471/Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009-Menu-of-Classroom-Activities-7-12)) they are for your convenience. I have a suspicion that you haven't examined them yet.
Heck, since WHEN does the Prez give speeches to LITTLE KIDS?? And why?
For over 2 decades?
Reagan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfejBpD_wm4#noexternalembed)
Bush 1 (http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002099)
Clinton (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RypiLeQkixI#noexternalembed)
Bush 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bATjvty5p8k#noexternalembed)
And why? Maybe to inspire them? Being addressed by the president of the US is considered something of an honor in certain circles.
-
He was reading a childrens' book, to children. If you refuse to recognize that there is a difference between this and prepared lecture accompanied by a prepared course/study outline coming from a man whose social and academic circles have consisted almost exclusively of avowed communists, left-wing racists, and the occasional domestic terrorist, whose first executive order as president was giving union labor exclusive rights to federal contracts, who has seized control of the census, whose justice department blew precedent out of the water to let the Black Panthers who were waving billy clubs on the steps of a voting station on election day off the hook, who has picked fights with private citizens and overseen an absolutely obscene expansion of government...
Are you familiar the expression of having "drank the Kool-Aid"?
You want to know why I'm opposed to Obama? Because he is a statist, for one, and for another because I believe he is a pathological narcissist. Either of those alone in a position of leadership has often been enough to destroy nations. When combined they too often lead to absolute mayhem.
But hey, who am I to question the greatness of the One, the Hope?
Like the Hondurans who had the audacity to expel a fellow traveler of The Messiah (and the Castros, and Chavez, and Ortega) for merely attempting to make himself dictator-for-life, like the Israelis who dared build settlements on their own land, like the Iranians who so rudely rebelled at a time inconvenient for Dear Leader, I should know my place, and keep silent.
-
No, the point was that he was in a classroom full of kids. Which was a response to the question: "Heck, since WHEN does the Prez give speeches to LITTLE KIDS?? And why?"
The reason he was in the classroom is unimportant to the point I was making.
-
You want to know why I'm opposed to Obama? Because he is a statist, for one, and for another because I believe he is a pathological narcissist. Either of those alone in a position of leadership has often been enough to destroy nations. When combined they too often lead to absolute mayhem.
Like I've been saying, there are valid ways and invalid ways of criticizing a person whose politics you disagree with.
Anti-statist opposition to federal health-care and social welfare programs is one thing. There's an intellectual basis to this sort of argument.
Vague arguments that there is a vast conspiracy collaborating to keep up the pretense that the president is a US Citizens is not a valid criticism. There's an anti-intellectual basis to this sort of argument.
National socialist concerns that giving union labor advantages over their capitalist counterparts will destroy the state is one thing. The intellectual debate rages.
Paranoid suggestions that Obama will be using his O-waves to brainwash our children into faggot-loving dope fiends on Sept. 8, however, fails to rise to the level of valid criticism. We're back in anti-intellectual territory for that one.
The distinction is kind of subtle but it's worth taking the time to understand if you wish to be taken seriously.
-
The No Child Left Behind program that Bush enacted was a complete failure.
-
The No Child Left Behind program that Bush, Ted Kennedy, and the majority of congressional Democrats enacted was a complete failure.
-
This "in your face, celebrate my Black-ness/Latino-ness/Asian-ness" shit that is perpetuated by the Dems is definitely what keeps racism alive in the US. The only way we are ever going to get a long is to stop pointing out that which makes us different.
Also educational initiatives that let some elements of society skate by because they are underprivileged, poor or have been drinking water out of lead pipes and are not capable of learning are also racism. Giving you a high school diploma and turning you loose on society with an IQ of 62 or the inability to read or do simple math should be a crime.
Oh but we can't give Jamal a failing grade, that would damage his self-esteem...
-
I think we need to stop pretending that everyone should aim for college. Some people aren't cut out for college unless you continuously lower standards. It's the same thing that happened with high school diplomas in this country -- some people simply can't meet a basic level of academic achievement, so standards have been continuously lowered in order to allow more people to "earn" a high school diploma.
I like the German structure for educating children. Everyone goes to primary school through 10 or 12 years old, then there are several different paths for students based on skill level.
I like the idea of common testing for children. I don't like it as a criteria for funding - rather, as a criteria for flunking kids and making them repeat grades. Or denying them entry into say, the higher levels of academic schools beyond primary school in my hypothetical educational system.
Also, it's disingenuous to give either political party credit for the bill. It was an example of what truly bipartisan politics can bring us! It passed with 87% of the vote in the Democratic controlled Senate & 89% of the vote in the Republican controlled House. Really, I think whoever coined the name "No Child Left Behind" deserves the bulk of the credit, because it's hard to vote against that, just like it was hard to vote against something with a name like the "Patriot Act."
-
National socialist concerns that giving union labor advantages over their capitalist counterparts will destroy the state is one thing. The intellectual debate rages.
Paranoid suggestions that Obama will be using his O-waves to brainwash our children into faggot-loving dope fiends on Sept. 8, however, fails to rise to the level of valid criticism. We're back in anti-intellectual territory for that one.
The distinction is kind of subtle but it's worth taking the time to understand if you wish to be taken seriously.
Excuse me, but i never stated that, nor do i believe it.
Don't you understand that it's the psychology of the thing? Or is psychology not "valid intellectual territory?"
To Mosh: What was GW doing there? NOT GIVING THEM A SPEECH, actually honoring them with his presence. i don't know about you, but i don't generally feel very "honored" by being forced to watch someone, ON TV, give a speech, even if it IS directed completely toward me.
p.s. i'm a Constitutionalist, and tbh, i have a major problem with the Hillary appointment, also. It was UNconstitutional (Read That: Against The Laws of the Land), but, it would appear, our gov are the LAST FOLKS to "pay attention" to our laws, and/or abide by them.
-
Whatever. This is pointless. If you can't see the difference between bogymen and real danger then we're all wasting our time.
-
Whatever. This is pointless. If you can't see the difference between bogymen and real danger then we're all wasting our time.
Sorry you feel that way.
<~ STFU'ing
-
Never apologize, never explain. Fag.
-
To Mosh: What was GW doing there? NOT GIVING THEM A SPEECH, actually honoring them with his presence. i don't know about you, but i don't generally feel very "honored" by being forced to watch someone, ON TV, give a speech, even if it IS directed completely toward me.
What GW was doing there is immaterial. He was there. Your point was WTF business does the President have being in a class with little kids? Incidentally, GW was reading to those kids, which if I remember rightly is just as boring as a speech. Mind you, it might have been a touch funnier with Bushism's.
See the distinction?
-
-
Wow. After reading that speech I, as a 46 year old man, feel compelled to join the Communist, Black Panther, Jews control EVERYTHING, anti-Democracy, hate whitey, America suxs Party...
Yeah, don't let your kids listen, fucktards.
-
Heck, since WHEN does the Prez give speeches to LITTLE KIDS?? And why?
To Mosh: What was GW doing there? NOT GIVING THEM A SPEECH, actually honoring them with his presence. i don't know about you, but i don't generally feel very "honored" by being forced to watch someone, ON TV, give a speech, even if it IS directed completely toward me.
Here are my posts, with what i said, bolded, for everyone's edification.
Now, if we can UNwrap ourselves from the axle over this, perhaps we can get on with some sort of meaningful dialogue, eh?
-
Child Psychology is not equal to Adult Psychology ~ it's so much easier to "trick" children. Study upon study has been done, in order to TARGET children, in the advertising arena (Read That : PR). To assume that NONE of that was taken into consideration when making this Lesson Plan is the height of stupidity, imho. Just because YOU don't see, nor recognize, it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
THAT's what "scares" me about it.
-
President George H.W. Bush gave an address to schools nationwide in 1991, from a junior high school in Washington, D.C.
Ronald Reagan took questions from high school students at the White House in 1986, and the question-and-answer session was broadcast nationally.
-
President George H.W. Bush gave an address to schools nationwide in 1991, from a junior high school in Washington, D.C.
Ronald Reagan took questions from high school students at the White House in 1986, and the question-and-answer session was broadcast nationally.
Yes, and i'd have no problem with Obozo giving a speech ~ it's the accompanying Lesson Plan/Teaching Materials and PR crap that bother me, not because it might be Pro-Obozo, but because it might be Pro-HUMONGUS-Government and slanted to be Anti-Constitution.
-
I just read the speech. Can someone please point out to me what the fuck exactly was wrong with it?
-
Are you suggesting that Obama would in no way alter his intended speech in light of the nation-wide criticisms which preceded it?
-
Haha. Oh, I get you. Why wait until after the speech to throw a fit when Glenn Beck issues the command to go for it early, right? Who needs a tangible fact-based reason to complain when we have such good imaginations? I mean let's be honest - before our preemptive indignation-fest, there was never any assurance given to us that Obama wouldn't just pull out his tallywacker right there on national television and permanently ruin the virtues of our daughters, right? Good point. I'm sure he scrapped that plan after he realized that the Forces of the Right were onto him.
-
Bahahahaha!
-
it's the accompanying Lesson Plan/Teaching Materials and PR crap that bother me, not because it might be Pro-Obozo, but because it might be Pro-HUMONGUS-Government and slanted to be Anti-Constitution.
All of which was invented by the right and do not even exist.
The big debate here is that the government wants to take over our schools and take responsibility for the education of our children.
My take on it, if done right, is that IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME SOMEONE DID! WE ARE RAISING A GENERATION OF MORONS. WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THAT HASN'T EDUCATED A SOUL JUST AS WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY THAT HASN'T GENERATED A CALORIE! WTF ARE MY TAX DOLLARS (if I paid any) DOING?
It's about time that the US raised the bar, set a standard of education (like every other industrialized nation in the world) and if you don't cut it, you do it again until you get it right. No more free passes to the class clown. And if it comes from the top down, so be it.
-
Would it be the first time the Obama administration changed tack after being caught with its hand in the cookie jar?
-
A good prosecutor never asks a question without knowing the answer. So you tell me.
-
I hear a certain avowed communist and conspiracy theorist is looking for a new job.
-
Ok and name me an administration in recent memory that didn't have to kick out a bad apple. Anybody remember Spiro T. Agnew? I know you don't personally, but I have a couple of years on you.
No one had their hand in any cookie jar, they just had an attention whore who needed quelling.
However for the record, his environmental programs were not without merit unless you owned a mining company or a slew of coal fired power plants...
-
Van Jones is by no means the first Obama appointee or associate that has been thrown under the bus when the public discovered their dirty laundry.
And now we're being told by the White House that he didn't fill out the 7-page pre-employment questionnaire for which FOIA requests might be made.
This is the same White House from which we previously had a spokesman claiming they had watched Van Jones for years, and that what they saw led to them hiring him.
I would say that Hiss would be a better comparison for Jones, but the fallacy there would be in that Hiss had to infiltrate the Democrat party while van Jones was welcomed with open arms.
-
Oh please, Hiss? Who the fuck are you trying to be when you grow up, Joe McCarthy? Stop looking for communism under every rock.
A little Socialism would do this country some good. Level the playing field. Show these corporate fuckers that a few dacades in a gulag is better than a firing squad. Indoctrination is good for the soul. You should know that, you wanted to be a Marine.
-
Stop looking for communism under every rock.
Not every rock, just the one sit has, historically, slithered beneath.
A conversation with Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB propagandist, by G. Edward Griffin 1of8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otxHEOdvoaM&feature=response_watch#normal)
A little Socialism would do this country some good. Level the playing field.
Socialism does not level the playing field, it flattens it. It establishes power differentials with private citizens driven downward, and the state driven up. It breeds dependency, and from dependency, oligarchy.
-
So you honestly believe that if we had one program that would make everyone equal, open all doors, cross color and race and economic disparities to make all Americans equal, that capitalism in this country would just wink out of existence?
And I read the subtitle on that video, saw the work "propagandist" and it became unnecessary to view.
-
Any critique of capitalism opens the door to the ghost of Stalin ass fucking your children before shoving them in a shallow grave.
-
You don't know my kids. It's a chance I'm willing to take.
-
-
It's pretty apparent that y'all can't see the forest for the trees ~
all of the ridiculous nit-picking, etc.
Step back a couple of yards and just LOOK at what you see, and if you think about it, you'll start seeing that it's about SO MUCH MORE than "finding Commies," or "racism," or even the Dems ~ it's about the WHOLE SYSTEM, and how rotten it is, through and through.
When Bush left office, the next prez was stepping into the Most Powerful Presidency in our country's history and so, yeah, pretty much anything this Prez does deserves CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, from ALL sides. That's a little hard to do with folks that just sit there, saying "Rah, Rah, Sis, Boom, BAH!"
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specters-plan-to-rein-in-the-presidency/ (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/specters-plan-to-rein-in-the-presidency/)
-
When Bush left office, the next prez was stepping into the Most Powerful Presidency in our country's history and so, yeah, pretty much anything this Prez does deserves CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, from ALL sides.
You honestly would've preferred McCoulddieanyminutenow and that ridiculous moron they were running as his VP? Seriously?
And as for forests, trees, and nitpicking, could you please point out to me what there is that worries you about the speech that was made? It's there for you to read, you know.
-
establishing an economy wherein who you know will be more important than how hard you work or what you have to offer, w
No., I honestly don't know who. Please enlighten me? Why so cryptic, Balor? You're living in the reddest of the red states. Why not just tell me what you see rather than hide it in entendre?
-
No, i would NOT have been happy with McCain/Palin ~ we've GOT to get back to our roots, and REBUILD THIS BROKEN DOWN SHACK.
THAT isn't going to happen with either of the major parties in office, imho
Yes, it's there for me to read. Unfortunately, i'm not a child psychologist, who could go over the whole thing, as recorded, for comparison so we'll have to wait and see what THEY might have to say, if anything.
-
THAT isn't going to happen with either of the major parties in office, imho
Great. Well, good luck getting anyone else elected.
Yes, it's there for me to read.
OK, but have you actually read it?
Unfortunately, i'm not a child psychologist, who could go over the whole thing, as recorded, for comparison so we'll have to wait and see what THEY might have to say, if anything.
OK, but how's about you just read the damn thing and tell me if anything in it strikes YOU as iffy about it?
-
Dyslexia much, Zoomie?
-
President tries to fix health care. Your SINGLE biggest issue... cue everyone sitting around looking at their fingernails while he gets shut down by lobbyists.
No caps on medical liability, therefore insurance costs, therefore every other cost is going to torpedo your nation.
-
BETTER THAT THAN SOCIALISM!!@!
-
I think I said something about three generations of morons?
Thank you.
-
OK, but how's about you just read the damn thing and tell me if anything in it strikes YOU as iffy about it?
Yes, i read it. These are the things i think are Red Flags:
Teaching about Obama, rather than EVERY president.
"What do you think it takes to be President?"
The correct answer will not be given, i suspect, in the way of eligibility. Not just that, but with most of the naive kids, their opinions will reflect their parents opinions, and be a round-about way of finding out how many folks are on the Where's the BC wagon.
"Why is it important that we listen to the Prez and other elected officials?"
Rather than "why is it important that THEY listen to US." That is "spin."
Teachers could ask students... i.e., citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty.
Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president, and be held accountable by their teachers.
Listening with a purpose:
Quote Obama
Quote Obama
The Transition Part ~ the first paragraph ~ MOST IMPORTANT STEP: "Ask a grown-up (ReadThat: Authority Figure) to check on me often, to make sure i'm reaching each of my steps. If they don't, that's okay; we fix them until they do add up!"
Those were just the obvious.
Edited for Zoomie ~ see next post
-
Fyre you know I love you but the first sign of pure ignorance is to result to name calling.
Work on that, huh?
-
President tries to fix health care.
I have no idea where to even begin pointing out the profound misguidance of this statement.
"Fix" helathcare by emulating the government run systems which where put into practice have largely resulted in technological stagnation, restricted access, downward-spiraling standards, and upward-spiraling cost to the public?
"Fix" healthcare with 1000 pages of legislation full of the most egregious abuses of government authority... which we were told should be passed without being read and to hell with anyone who questioned it?
Americans have access to the best healthcare in the world. That in itself is cause for part of its high cost. The rest of that coast is largely due to a combination of ambulance chasers and the ways in which the government already interferes in the market.
And as for you , Zoomie... What the fuck are you even talking about anymore?
-
The No Child Left Behind program that Bush, Ted Kennedy, and the majority of congressional Democrats enacted was a complete failure.
The "No Child Left Behind" program, was a "No Child (and their parents) Left Unexploited" program that was a huge success.
-
I'm convinced that the way to fix your countries health problems is to kick out the lawyers. Mistakes in medicine happen, people are animals not computers. What needs to stop is hospitals and doctors passing on massive legal risk to your consumers in the form on health insurance. This doesn't happen in other developed nations. The way you kick out the lawyers it to make it not worth their while to operate in that space.
Another theory I have is about drugs. I think you should increase the time span a drugs patent is valid for. I read a couple of years ago that it's about 14 or 15 years from the time an application is mate to the FDA before competitors can start copying the drug. This time-span was set decades ago, when it only took a year or so to get a drug through the process and to market. These days the testing process is much stricter and developing a drug can cost $1billion for the big players, and take 4-7 years to get approved. Drugs companies then have just 7-8 years to recoup their investment before getting undercut. Hence prices for branded prescription drugs keep going up and up. These companies want more people to be able to buy their product, not less. Increasing the minimum patent lifecycle to 12 years from date of FDA approval would allow lower pricing. The drugs company would probably make even more from the wider exposure, as more people and doctors would trust the brand. Win-win
Americans have access to the best healthcare in the world.
Not enough Americans. Hence this debate.
That in itself is cause for part of its high cost.
BS. The same technology gets rapidly rolled out to other countries.
The rest of that coast is largely due to a combination of ambulance chasers
agreed
and the ways in which the government already interferes in the market.
Details please
-
And as for you , Zoomie... What the fuck are you even talking about anymore?
Oh, sorry, I'll try to be more succint.
Your posts in this thread stink to high heaven of nationalism, racism, and antisemitism.
Hope you got it that time.
-
The Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science has stated that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. The World Health Organization ranks the United States healthcare as 37th in the world behind at least 28 other countries that do have some form of universal healthcare. Like Nick points out, the contention that Americans as a whole have access to the best healthcare the US has to offer would be laughable if it weren't such a shame.
The current system in place to take care of those that are uninsured is described by Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The idea is that if you can't afford the treatment you can always go to the emergency room where they are required by law to treat you. The treatments needed by the uninsured cost lost of money and the hospitals are almost completely incapable of recouping these losses. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip as they say. So the hospitals turn to their "paying customers" to recoup these losses. This drives the price of healthcare into the stratosphere and makes it necessary for more costly insurance. As insurance prices rise, fewer people are insured and are forced to rely on emergency medical treatment. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. I know the free market is supposed to solve all problems, and I can see the argument that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is an example of the government interfering and causing the original problem, but the truth of the matter is that without this Act, poor people would be dying in the streets.
It all boils down to narratives. The right-wingers have a mental idea of the poor unemployed often minority family as parasites who would rather remain unemployed and indulge in drugs than to make an honest living. Meanwhile the left-wingers have a mental idea of the poor unemployed often minority family as folks who are down on their luck and there but for the grace of god go any of us. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between. Some unemployed people are parasites on society and some are hard workers that have gotten unlucky. To me I'd rather see parasites enjoying my hard work than to see those that are trying to make a go of it suffering because I'm trying to prove a point.
I'm pretty certain that it would not spell the end of the American Dream if we were to offer a public option. As it is, the insured are already bearing the costs of the uninsured through artificially-bloated healthcare bills. I'm not sure it would have that much of an impact on the taxpayer's life if the same money he pays in the form of higher hospital bills was instead paid as taxes to support a universal system. I think that if the government should limit the public option to those who truly could not afford private insurance and this would remove the so-called "deep pockets" effect that the government would have on competition against private insurance. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of tort reform although it'll be hard to achieve, and I don't think malpractice suits should be done away with at all.
That said, I thought I'd just stop here to recognize how infinitely much more respectable this line of criticism of the current administration's policies is than the previous childishness about secret conspiracies working to hide the fact that the Commander in Chief is a Foreign National or that the President's speech to children will be filled with coded messages that will infect the minds of the youth. I mean there is room for serious debate when we discuss healthcare reform, and I don't think there's necessarily one right answer. So thanks to all for making the intellectual leap.
-
Japan has a system I hate, the cost of your healthcare is like an income tax, ie proportionate to your income. I hate it because like any taxation system it penalizes employees and rewards small business owners. My health insurance is $270 per month. My wife pays $5 because she can jink her taxable income
-
I read some interviews with a series of doctors recently. Of the doctors interviewed, there seemed to be a general consensus that doctors in the US are really good at a lot of things - mostly the high tech and heavy intervention side of medicine. What the US does not do well is provide preventative or basic care to avoid the bigger problems down the road. And it's not just the uninsured - even the insured are comparitively short changed on a baseline of care.
----
I generally think arguments about the free market are a load of bullshit. The development of medical treatments in the United States is heavily subsidized by the government - NIH grants, new treatments developed at the NNMC/Walter Reed, research conducted cheaply by graduate students/medical students at public universities, research at public facilities such as NIST, etc.
Scientific research generally is heavily subsidized by the government because the demands of satisfying the short-term interests of stock holders has led to private industry doing very little in the way of R&D on a purely private level (expensive, no guarantee of return, time to see a return on investment, etc.). However, when you can partner with the government and allow tax payers to foot a good portion of the costs & risk of R&D...
To put it succinctly - all of these fantastic advances in medicine that we're trying to figure out how to pay for were not developed by the free market. If you want a fucking free market, go back to drinking snake oil.
-
-
BS. The same technology gets rapidly rolled out to other countries.
Most other countries are at least a few years behind the US. When they do get the newest equipment their government permits them to purchase, they do so in at a far lower equipment-to-patient ration. Have plentiful, bleeding-edge medical equipment costs more money, and saves more lives.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/best-hospitals/2009/07/10/cost-of-medicine-are-high-tech-medical-devices-and-treatments-always-worth-it.html (http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/best-hospitals/2009/07/10/cost-of-medicine-are-high-tech-medical-devices-and-treatments-always-worth-it.html)
-
If the difference is between waiting three days to find out of I have cancer and waiting three months to find out if I have cancer, yes it is fucking worth it.
-
The Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science has stated that the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.
So fucking what? This just in: Your health is your responsibility. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal government has a right to take the responsibility, and the right to make choices concerning your own health and medical treatments, from you.
If you can't afford health then I think you would be happy to allow the government to choose to offer you insurance so that you could choose from a range of options that would not be available but for their intervention. If the alternative is going to the emergency room, getting substandard treatment, and in return leveraging your costs onto the backs of those that can afford health (if only just barely in some cases), then it's lose-lose. I think this is a pretty ridiculous distortion of the proposed healthcare reforms, and it demonstrates either a willful ignorance of the content of the proposals or an over-emotional and mind-clouded response to the proposer, his political party, or certain key words such as "public." An argument is only as strong as its ability to engage with the substance of the position argued against. You're arguing here against something that only exists in your mind.
-
If the difference is between waiting three days to find out of I have cancer and waiting three months to find out if I have cancer, yes it is fucking worth it.
The scan is only as good as the person who views it.
-
If the difference is between waiting three days to find out of I have cancer and waiting three months to find out if I have cancer, yes it is fucking worth it.
The scan is only as good as the person who views it.
It also has nothing to do with the article.
-
It should though. If your going to write up about how over tech'n is wastefull, I would expect one or two lines about how about how experienced health care workers save more lives than fancy scans.
I shall drop out here.
-
It should though. If your going to write up about how over tech'n is wastefull, I would expect one or two lines about how about how experienced health care workers save more lives than fancy scans.
I shall drop out here.
I meant that his argument is irrelevant.
A few highlights about the discussions about technology in medicine:
We need to reduce doctors ordering unnecessary tests to cover their asses in case of future lawsuits.
Expensive technology ends up being used too broadly, where there is not evidence of it being cost effective or improving quality of life.
Expensive technology is used because a hospital has a particular piece of equipment rather than because there is evidence that is more effective than a cheaper treatment.
The way doctors are paid - by quantity rather than quality - encourages unnecessary procedures.
People perceive that high-tech is better and request the unnecessary, more expensive procedures (the article I linked mentions specifically mammograms vs. MRIs and ultrasounds).
Technology is a prestige issue for hospitals as much as a diagnostic tool - you don't want to be the kid on the block whose parents did not buy them an NES.
-
This is why Canada does not allow pharmaceutical companies and medical technology companies to advertise. If all that shit were in the magazines and on TV like it is here the doctors would be inundated with requests for this pill or that scan. It would be even slower than it is now. Which is how it should be in the US. You don't tell the doctor which pill you want, he should tell you which pill you need.
Which brings us full circle as it did in the CORRECT THREAD FOR THIS DEBATE:
1. Tort reform.
2. Curtailment of control by pharmaceutical companies.
3. Insurance reform.
THEN Healthcare reform.
Of course we always do things ass backwards in the US, which is why we shot first and asked question later in Iraq.
-
It all boils down to narratives. The right-wingers have a mental idea of the poor unemployed often minority family as parasites who would rather remain unemployed and indulge in drugs than to make an honest living. Meanwhile the left-wingers have a mental idea of the poor unemployed often minority family as folks who are down on their luck and there but for the grace of god go any of us. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between. Some unemployed people are parasites on society and some are hard workers that have gotten unlucky. To me I'd rather see parasites enjoying my hard work than to see those that are trying to make a go of it suffering because I'm trying to prove a point.
I feel like this bears repeating.
-
This is why Canada does not allow pharmaceutical companies and medical technology companies to advertise. If all that shit were in the magazines and on TV like it is here the doctors would be inundated with requests for this pill or that scan. It would be even slower than it is now. Which is how it should be in the US. You don't tell the doctor which pill you want, he should tell you which pill you need.
Which brings us full circle as it did in the CORRECT THREAD FOR THIS DEBATE:
1. Tort reform.
2. Curtailment of control by pharmaceutical companies.
3. Insurance reform.
THEN Healthcare reform.
Of course we always do things ass backwards in the US, which is why we shot first and asked question later in Iraq.
I didn't know about that... in Japan prescription medicine isn't advertised. The only stuff that is are vitamins and basic cold prevention stuff.
I like Balor's theory of Young people voluntarily missing health insurance. Yee-haw!
-
But back to the actual topic of this thread, I'd just like to say,
Don't do drugs
Stay in school
Do something for the good of humankind
Oooooooooooooooooooo very scary Socialist indoctrination speech!!!!
Stupid fuckers.
-
But back to the actual topic of this thread, I'd just like to say,
Don't do drugs
Stay in school
Do something for the good of humankind
Oooooooooooooooooooo very scary Socialist indoctrination speech!!!!
Stupid fuckers.
Are you saying that you weren't mobbed by 10 year olds and forced to proclaim your love for Obama & communism?
I was attacked by 50 children and had a hammer & sickle tattooed on my forehead.
-
I wish I had a hammer & sickle tattooed on my forehead.
You are truly blessed.
-
Mike gets all the sexy 3rd graders...