Politics Obama's verbal slip fuels his critics

[Varine]

So in addition to being muslim he's a christian who supports this hateful church?

Yup. He's also socialist. BUT he's good at lying so he'll be great in the aspect of not letting the public know what's actually going on. Another good thing he has going for him is that he has this ability to talk and make everyone support everything he says and think he's amazing, but in reality all he really says is stuff people should already know anyway. And then he does the McCain is really Bush in disguise thing.

 

[WolSHaman]

Yup. He's also socialist. BUT he's good at lying so he'll be great in the aspect of not letting the public know what's actually going on. Another good thing he has going for him is that he has this ability to talk and make everyone support everything he says and think he's amazing, but in reality all he really says is stuff people should already know anyway. And then he does the McCain is really Bush in disguise thing.

So you're saying first of all that Obama both supports a hateful christian church and he's a muslim at the same time? I'm guessing that you're being sarcastic/kidding there, so I'll ignore it. And why do you believe that Obama is a socialist? And even if that's the case, why do you think being a socialist automatically makes someone a crappy candidate?

 

[Varine]

So you're saying first of all that Obama both supports a hateful christian church and he's a muslim at the same time? I'm guessing that you're being sarcastic/kidding there, so I'll ignore it. And why do you believe that Obama is a socialist? And even if that's the case, why do you think being a socialist automatically makes someone a crappy candidate?

Yeah, that was sarcasm. Most of it was. Actually what I meant in that first post was that if he is Christian, which he probably is, I don't doubt it (just like to argue because everyone else does the same thing, regardless of how much proof there is against them), I meant that he had been going to a Christian church with a preacher who preach that America sucks, and didn't seem to have an issue with it until it was brought up with the campaign. But you set it up so well I just had to....

Why being socialist makes you a bad candidate for a capitalist country? Because socialism means more taxes, more people being dependent on the government, and more socialized systems. I really am not okay with that, and there isn't really anything that would make me be okay with it. I like having privatized health care and insurance. There are some systems that are fun being socialized, like schools and such and I think most everyone else is fine with it to. But when you start socializing things, then you end up with income tax rates getting up to 30, 40, 50 percent, to pay for it.
I mean, when I get sick I want to just go to the doctor when I want to, I don't want to wait for the government to tell me when I can go and who to go see. Which is what Obama, regardless of what the says it will be like, is going to ultimately end up with. There are a lot of bad things that come with Socialism that he's obviously going to try and instate, and as I'm not socialist, I don't want that. Which makes him a bad candidate because he's not going to do anything that I think is going to help the country much.

 

[WolSHaman]

Yeah, that was sarcasm. Most of it was. Actually what I meant in that first post was that if he is Christian, which he probably is, I don't doubt it (just like to argue because everyone else does the same thing, regardless of how much proof there is against them), I meant that he had been going to a Christian church with a preacher who preach that America sucks, and didn't seem to have an issue with it until it was brought up with the campaign. But you set it up so well I just had to....

Why being socialist makes you a bad candidate for a capitalist country? Because socialism means more taxes, more people being dependent on the government, and more socialized systems. I really am not okay with that, and there isn't really anything that would make me be okay with it. I like having privatized health care and insurance. There are some systems that are fun being socialized, like schools and such and I think most everyone else is fine with it to. But when you start socializing things, then you end up with income tax rates getting up to 30, 40, 50 percent, to pay for it.
I mean, when I get sick I want to just go to the doctor when I want to, I don't want to wait for the government to tell me when I can go and who to go see. Which is what Obama, regardless of what the says it will be like, is going to ultimately end up with. There are a lot of bad things that come with Socialism that he's obviously going to try and instate, and as I'm not socialist, I don't want that. Which makes him a bad candidate because he's not going to do anything that I think is going to help the country much.

Yes taxes would be increased, I'd admit that. I'll also admit that Obama probably has the wrong idea about how to go about doing nationalized healthcare. Personally I think providing all citizens access to basic health care and then having the option to pay for more benefits is fine. And yes, socialism could, in theory, leave people reliant on the government, but capitalism leaves people reliant on corporations, and government lust for power can be bad, yes, but so can corporate greed. And to some extent don't the current medical insurance things already tell you who you have to see, as certain plans aren't covered in certain hospitals or something? Also, he's not trying to enstate the worst parts of socialism, or at least, the perceived worst parts of socialism (you know, the dictatorship, mass political executions etc.) And you're more optimistic then I thought. I doubt that either of the candidates will be able to make much of a difference at all... and yes the whole pastor thing kinda mucked up Obama to. Back to the idea of socialized medicine, don't you think a basic healthcare system for everyone for free would actually encourage people to rely less on the government? Currently if someone is covered under medicaid and they start earning to much or get employed, the medicaid dries up, and they have no health insurance, so people must intentionally try and stay poor to receive their health care. And I agree that breeding people to be reliant on others for charity is a bad thing, as any form of parasitic living can be, but there is another angle that I've heard by I want to say John Rawls, although that might not be the name, I think it is. Anyways, he proposed something: suppose hypothetically, you were floating in the abyss, and you knew you were going to be placed on a society of your creation in a random class of society, so basically its a class lottery. Which would you rather have: a society where the top 5% can get away with murder and the bottom 40% have next to nothing, and lack even the most basic resources to pull themselves out of society, or a society where the top 5% lives well, but must still abide by the law, and don't have the power to lord over society, and where although the bottom 40% might not be the richest, they can get by and have a government to help make ends meet? Yes this is an exaggeration and the US isn't this bad, but its just an example of how you'd want to probably add some form of welfare so that the bottom classes would have some way of pulling themselves out of poverty or at least get enough to subsist by? Ok I have no idea what I'm talking about now either, but some of that probably made sense, I hope.

 

[Varine]

And to some extent don't the current medical insurance things already tell you who you have to see, as certain plans aren't covered in certain hospitals or something?

Not usually, that I'm aware of anyway. I've never had that issue, and no one that I know has ever complained about it.

, he's not trying to enstate the worst parts of socialism, or at least, the perceived worst parts of socialism (you know, the dictatorship, mass political executions etc.)

Socialism is an economic system, not a political system, so I'm not too worried about that. There's a difference between the two; there wouldn't be an issue having a socialistic economy in a republic political system. I just don't really want one.

to the idea of socialized medicine, don't you think a basic healthcare system for everyone for free would actually encourage people to rely less on the government?

It wouldn't be free, there would be a noticable tax increase. And no, I don't think they would become more self-reliant. I think that there are ways to avoid having socialized healthcare and still allow people with low income to have it. I think Romney had a pretty good plan for it, actually.

Which would you rather have: a society where the top 5% can get away with murder and the bottom 40% have next to nothing, and lack even the most basic resources to pull themselves out of society, or a society where the top 5% lives well, but must still abide by the law, and don't have the power to lord over society, and where although the bottom 40% might not be the richest, they can get by and have a government to help make ends meet? Yes this is an exaggeration and the US isn't this bad, but its just an example of how you'd want to probably add some form of welfare so that the bottom classes would have some way of pulling themselves out of poverty or at least get enough to subsist by?

Well obviously most people would choose the second option, but there are ways to go about having this happen in a totally capitalistic society, which the US isn't anyway. And it wouldn't force people like me, who have no problem with the current system of privatized healthcare (even if I wasn't in the Army), to pay extra taxes to uplift others who, for whatever reason, are incapable or unwilling to do it themselves.

And I know that by saying that it makes me look like an ass who doesn't care about anyone. But I'm not; I would have no problem giving the government money to help get people who are incapable of getting out of an economic hole that they got in to. But a lot of the people that would be funded by this, at least in my eyes, don't deserve it. A lot of them are people who aren't incapable of working their way up into a higher social class, but simply unwilling. Or it's their fault that they got into in the first place because of their greed. I know people who bought six, seven, eight plus houses when the market was going up and intended to sell them when the market peaked. Which they could have easily done at one time and made a pretty good profit off of them. But instead of selling them, they held on and wanted the market to keep going up, and then the housing market tanked and now they're fucked and have like eight houses that they can't sell for even what they bought them for. That's their fault, not mine, not the governments, not yours. And had the market not tanked and left people like this (not saying that I think everyone that needs help needs it because of their own faults, but a lot), then they would instead have made maybe a 40% profit.

I also might be more accepting if people didn't stand on the side of the highway with a sign saying 'Bush can't get me a job' because the government probably doesn't really owe them one. And, I might be wrong, but I doubt Kerry, or now Obama, will really be able to get them a job either.

 

[WolSHaman]

Ok I'm gonna try quoting with >>'s as I don't feel like doing a multiquote thing. Anyways:

>>Not usually, that I'm aware of anyway. I've never had that issue, and no one that I know has ever complained about it.

I'm just throwing this out as a general thing, can't say for sure about this. Consider this withdrawn.

>>Socialism is an economic system, not a political system, so I'm not too worried about that. There's a difference between the two; there wouldn't be an issue having a socialistic economy in a republic political system. I just don't really want one.

Well, I think we're already debating this, so I'm not going to argue this part directly...

>>It wouldn't be free, there would be a noticable tax increase. And no, I don't think they would become more self-reliant. I think that there are ways to avoid having socialized healthcare and still allow people with low income to have it. I think Romney had a pretty good plan for it, actually.

How do you define noticeable? I'm saying bare, bare minimum, as in you have a right to go to get preventative operations for the most part, because people need to learn that prevention is far better and cheaper then treating a problem (not criticizing either method, just a general statement). If people had access to cheap medical care early on, they could get the problem solved for little to no money, and then they wouldn't need an overly elaborate system. Also, you wouldn't have to fund many of the super-expensive operations. This might sound callous, but the government wouldn't fund the lower-tiered health care people if they were just trying to slow an untreatable disease for an indefinite period of time. Now, if they caught something treatable, they could be admitted to a hospital for say a week, and then if they showed significant improvement, they could be discharged or kept a few more days depending on what circumstanced required.

>>And it wouldn't force people like me, who have no problem with the current system of privatized healthcare (even if I wasn't in the Army), to pay extra taxes to uplift others who, for whatever reason, are incapable or unwilling to do it themselves.

Well yes, no one wants to support the deadbeat who doesn't do anything, but this could be solved with some form of welfare reform. If they could provide proof that they were actively seeking a job, or provide proof that they were going to some form of reasonably-priced schooling as a student, why shouldn't they be funded? But yes, there must be some sort of way of inspecting whether or not people are looking for a job.

Also, I would like an answer to this: do you think that people would almost be more encouraged to work if they had access to cheap medical care, so that they could feel obligated to get a job and still receieve medical care, instead of having to stay unemployed in order to receive treatments for chronic pains and debilitating illnesses/mental disorders? If people knew that the government could cover there medical care, or at least some of it, even while they were working, it would probably motivate a large amount of people to get working.

 

[Varine]

How do you define noticeable? I'm saying bare, bare minimum, as in you have a right to go to get preventative operations for the most part, because people need to learn that prevention is far better and cheaper then treating a problem (not criticizing either method, just a general statement). If people had access to cheap medical care early on, they could get the problem solved for little to no money, and then they wouldn't need an overly elaborate system. Also, you wouldn't have to fund many of the super-expensive operations. This might sound callous, but the government wouldn't fund the lower-tiered health care people if they were just trying to slow an untreatable disease for an indefinite period of time. Now, if they caught something treatable, they could be admitted to a hospital for say a week, and then if they showed significant improvement, they could be discharged or kept a few more days depending on what circumstanced required.

Treatments aren't cheap. I understand where you're coming from, but a lot of these things still cost thousands of dollars. And what about people who have things like MS? You can't really treat it and make it go away, but there are treatments that make it way better than if they were without it. Would the government help them, or tell them to go get privatized healthcare for it, but still pay your extra taxes for these people who we can make better?
And for most of those people with cheap, easily treatable issues, there are plenty of non-profit organizations that will get it done for them. There are even hospitals that wouldn't charge them if they couldn't pay it, so they wouldn't need to try and get on to a charity fund for help. The government doesn't need to intervene with them, they just need to go out and ask for some help. The point of the socialized health care is to help people who have things that these places won't help them with because it's too expensive.
Again, the MS thing because I think it's a good example. There's a treatment that costs several thousand dollars, I believe it's this much anyway (I've never had to get one so I don't really know), for one treatment, which you need every month. It helps them function incrediably well (like people that had to be in a wheelchair for years were able to walk after a few treatments). But you can't cure it. And then people who have things like cerebral palsy, or down syndrome, who have expensive bills as well. You can't cure that, but is the government going to say that they have to get privatized care so that they can function properly in society when they get older, or is the government going to help?
I really see absolutely no point in doing this if they aren't taken care of. But again, there are ways to get everyone health care without socialism.

If they could provide proof that they were actively seeking a job, or provide proof that they were going to some form of reasonably-priced schooling as a student, why shouldn't they be funded?

Again, if the government is only going to help people with treatable, relatively cheap issues, there are hundreds of charities and hospitals that will get them the care that is needed without charging them.

do you think that people would almost be more encouraged to work if they had access to cheap medical care, so that they could feel obligated to get a job and still receieve medical care, instead of having to stay unemployed in order to receive treatments for chronic pains and debilitating illnesses/mental disorders? If people knew that the government could cover there medical care, or at least some of it, even while they were working, it would probably motivate a large amount of people to get working.

If it was socialized, then EVERYONE would be subject to it's benifits. That unfortunately would include people that aren't working, and aren't trying to work.


The idea that I feel is better, to avoid posting it next time(I like how far off we've taken this by the way):
The health system would be done at state level, not federal. States would be able to decide a system that would work for them, which may very well be socialized care. But that should require a vote, which means that the people would have a direct say, not an indirect as it is at federal level, and it wouldn't subject the entire nation to it (because it would only take eleven states [if the biggest states populationwise all voted the same, then they would be able to overrule all thirty-nine others] to all vote at federal level and it would go, even if every other state said no).
But that's stupid because it can be avoided. If, however, the state were to set up a proxy to the insurance, then it would be so much better. Most of the healthcare insurance providers have systems for companies and such, where the insurance rate is extremely low because they're having masses of people in on it, and it would essentially work the same way. The proxy would allow people without insurance to all sign up, and it may have to be mandated that if you have children underaged then you're required to register for it. They would all have a monthly fee, which would probably be pretty cheap given how many people are on it.
Now, I understand that some people won't be able to pay for it every month because of certain issues that arose. So you raise the state tax by one percent or so, which really wouldn't be that bad, and that money is set into a government-held fund for people who really can't pay. However, in order to get onto it, you would have to have what would be like an audit, where the government looks at your funds and income and such things, to decide if you actually deserve to get the help for the month, or if you went out and bought a Hummer and now you have no money until the next paycheck.
Because the aid probably won't be given to a lot of people because most don't really need it, then a surplus will eventually develop, which really doesn't mean anything except that there's a surplus of funds for the system because they can't really use it for anything else.

 

[WolSHaman]

>>Treatments aren't cheap. I understand where you're coming from, but a lot of these things still cost thousands of dollars. And what about people who have things like MS? You can't really treat it and make it go away, but there are treatments that make it way better than if they were without it. Would the government help them, or tell them to go get privatized healthcare for it, but still pay your extra taxes for these people who we can make better?
And for most of those people with cheap, easily treatable issues, there are plenty of non-profit organizations that will get it done for them. There are even hospitals that wouldn't charge them if they couldn't pay it, so they wouldn't need to try and get on to a charity fund for help. The government doesn't need to intervene with them, they just need to go out and ask for some help. The point of the socialized health care is to help people who have things that these places won't help them with because it's too expensive.
Again, the MS thing because I think it's a good example. There's a treatment that costs several thousand dollars, I believe it's this much anyway (I've never had to get one so I don't really know), for one treatment, which you need every month. It helps them function incrediably well (like people that had to be in a wheelchair for years were able to walk after a few treatments). But you can't cure it. And then people who have things like cerebral palsy, or down syndrome, who have expensive bills as well. You can't cure that, but is the government going to say that they have to get privatized care so that they can function properly in society when they get older, or is the government going to help?
I really see absolutely no point in doing this if they aren't taken care of. But again, there are ways to get everyone health care without socialism.

I disagree first off, that socialized medicine makes a country socialist. However, another thing to keep in mind is if this really would be expensive. I'm not sure about the treatments of MS per se, but at least for many drugs, it seems like the other countries with socialized medicine (Japan, Europe) pay far less, almost half the price that we pay, so it wouldn't be as expensive. Also, if someone had MS or Down syndrome as a preexisting medical condition, they would pay more to a private company anyways, so perhaps that would happen with the state. I'm honestly not super sure, as I haven't extensively studied other socialized healthcare systems or devised how the perfect one would work.

>>If they could provide proof that they were actively seeking a job, or provide proof that they were going to some form of reasonably-priced schooling as a student, why shouldn't they be funded?

In this case I was talking about welfare in general, but yes they could also get better healthcare for this to, and its not like the private entities would completely die, as I was under the assumption that they were the ones getting paid for the additional stuff.

>>If it was socialized, then EVERYONE would be subject to it's benifits. That unfortunately would include people that aren't working, and aren't trying to work.

This is an unfornate other fact I admit, but just because something doesn't work perfectly doesn't mean that it should be scrapped. No system ever preforms perfectly, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used.


>>The idea that I feel is better, to avoid posting it next time(I like how far off we've taken this by the way):
The health system would be done at state level, not federal. States would be able to decide a system that would work for them, which may very well be socialized care. But that should require a vote, which means that the people would have a direct say, not an indirect as it is at federal level, and it wouldn't subject the entire nation to it (because it would only take eleven states [if the biggest states populationwise all voted the same, then they would be able to overrule all thirty-nine others] to all vote at federal level and it would go, even if every other state said no).
But that's stupid because it can be avoided. If, however, the state were to set up a proxy to the insurance, then it would be so much better. Most of the healthcare insurance providers have systems for companies and such, where the insurance rate is extremely low because they're having masses of people in on it, and it would essentially work the same way. The proxy would allow people without insurance to all sign up, and it may have to be mandated that if you have children underaged then you're required to register for it. They would all have a monthly fee, which would probably be pretty cheap given how many people are on it.
Now, I understand that some people won't be able to pay for it every month because of certain issues that arose. So you raise the state tax by one percent or so, which really wouldn't be that bad, and that money is set into a government-held fund for people who really can't pay. However, in order to get onto it, you would have to have what would be like an audit, where the government looks at your funds and income and such things, to decide if you actually deserve to get the help for the month, or if you went out and bought a Hummer and now you have no money until the next paycheck.
Because the aid probably won't be given to a lot of people because most don't really need it, then a surplus will eventually develop, which really doesn't mean anything except that there's a surplus of funds for the system because they can't really use it for anything else.

Actually this is also a decent idea. So basically it would have people paying for low cost insurance, not as a tax, but as an addendum if you wanted it? Interesting.

>>(I like how far off we've taken this by the way)
This debate is better then the normal internet debate. Bonus points if this evolves into a discussion about the meaning of life.

 

[BlowingKush]

When being continually told "You're Muslim", its obvious where his train of thought was. Doesn't bother me one bit.

Ya this pretty much sums it up.

Most americans have no clue about the amount of interviews and speeches and meetings that Obama has endured over the last 3 years.
3 years of continous conversation from 8 am to 7 pm mon-fri. Insane.
He said hes a christian, hes attended church for 20 years, his children are christian and his wife is christian. If you havn't gotten it by now, then you suffer serious deficiency in human communication and should seek professional help.


The fact that hes made so few verbal slips over this time absolutley amazes me. What a beast.

 

[Lord_Phoenix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc

Few verbal slips? Wenever he doesn't have a telepromtor to tell him what to say he can't say anything at all!

 

[Karawasa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc

Few verbal slips? Wenever he doesn't have a telepromtor to tell him what to say he can't say anything at all!

Looking at the last two forums(Christian one, 9/11 one), Obama performed much better than McCain in terms of communication. He spoke better, thought faster, and generally came across as smarter than McCain.

Now let's not even compare the two when talking about a scripted speech.

Looks to me like McCain can't say anything at all regardless of teleprompter or not!

This post has nothing to do with the positions they're taking by the way.

As for the main topic, Obama is a Christian and if you believe otherwise you probably also believe the world is flat.

 

[BlowingKush]

As for the main topic, Obama is a Christian and if you believe otherwise you probably also believe the world is flat.

lol. well put holmes.

 

[TheDamien]

As for the main topic, Obama is a Christian and if you believe otherwise you probably also believe the world is flat.

Or that creationism should be taught in schools.

 

[esb]

Teaching creationism in school would be stupid. Think about it. It would be the ONLY thing that wouldn't have fact except some 2000 year old compilation of letters. It would be as real as telling them Greek Gods still exist, and that it rains when God cries.

 

[BANANAMAN]

they sorta teach that in the phillipines as part of the curriculum (Cristian living is a required subject )

 

[Varine]

Ya this pretty much sums it up.

Most americans have no clue about the amount of interviews and speeches and meetings that Obama has endured over the last 3 years.
3 years of continous conversation from 8 am to 7 pm mon-fri. Insane.
He said hes a christian, hes attended church for 20 years, his children are christian and his wife is christian. If you havn't gotten it by now, then you suffer serious deficiency in human communication and should seek professional help.


The fact that hes made so few verbal slips over this time absolutley amazes me. What a beast.

Which is unfortunate, as he has not been doing his actual job the entire time.

Looking at the last two forums(Christian one, 9/11 one), Obama performed much better than McCain in terms of communication. He spoke better, thought faster, and generally came across as smarter than McCain.

The only issue with that is that he's not.

Or that creationism should be taught in schools.

They teach evolution. There's no reason they shouldn't offer a history class that discusses creationism.

 

[sqrage]

>>There's no reason they shouldn't offer a history class that discusses creationism.

What about separation of church and state? Public schools are government funded, if you want your kids to be 'taught' creationism then send them to a private school.

 

[Seb!]

I think he was referring to it in the context of history class. Creationism is a VERY widely held belief and there for has to be taught in history classes. Nowhere near a science class though, imho.

 

[Varine]

What about separation of church and state? Public schools are government funded, if you want your kids to be 'taught' creationism then send them to a private school.

In which case evolution shouldn't be taught either, as it too is a belief that technically could be classified into a theological belief, as it's generally used to disprove the existence of a God.
I don't think you understand what I'm talking about or separation of church and state. The code doesn't restrict public schools from being capable of offering classes revolving around religious studies. If that was the case, then teaching the theory evolution would be in violation.
And in relation to Seb!'s post, science classes aren't really supposed to teach about evolution or creationism. Maybe biology could kind of end up in such a discussion, however the point of the class is to teach about how biological entities work and adapt, not how they first came to be.

 

[TheDamien]

They teach evolution. There's no reason they shouldn't offer a history class that discusses creationism.

It could be discussed in Social Studies, in the context of religious belief in human society, but it should not be taught as science or as a valid explanation for the origin of life in public schools.

In which case evolution shouldn't be taught either, as it too is a belief that technically could be classified into a theological belief, as it's generally used to disprove the existence of a God.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a theological belief or a religion. It is fully compatible with theism and so can not be used to disprove the existence of a god.