DIVIDE AND CONQUER
MOST HELPFUL POSTS
Krista - posted on 05/05/2010
I'll address some of your more rational points. Your point that his "horns are real" is beyond ludicrous and not even worth addressing.
First, Obama's poll numbers. He has a 48.5 approval rating and a 44.9 disapproval rating. This is from poll compilation from RealClearPolitics, as opposed to just going by Rasmussen (which isn't always the most reliable). So, more people approve of him than disapprove. But you seem to enjoy implying that the entire American public is displeased with him.
One thing to keep in mind as well: not all people who are upset with Obama are upset for the same reasons you are. There are a lot of people on the left who feel that Obama is too centrist. They wanted a public option for healthcare. They think that he has been too slow in repealing DADT. They are disappointed that he has not immediately rescinded all of the gross abuses of executive power that Bush had put into place.
So if you look at those poll numbers and take that to mean that all of America feels the same way that YOU do about everything, then you're deluding yourself.
Yes, Obama voted against banning late-term abortions. And I think that was the right decision. Please do me a favour: go and read some of these stories of women who had late-term abortions. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th...
You may still feel that they should not have been legally allowed to make the decision that they did, but I hope that their stories will help you realize why so many of us DO think that this procedure needs to be kept legal.
I don't understand your beef about the justices. It's not that uncommon for Democratic politicians to oppose Republican nominees, and vice versa. Or do you not remember the huge protest that the Republicans raised about Sotomayer?
And I'm not really sure I understand why you are so upset about taxes being raised for top 5% of earners in the country. Most people who are that wealthy are more than capable of offsetting tax increases by way of various tax shelters and deductions.
Besides, the top bracket is STILL one of the lowest in history. Here is a list of the top tax brackets (where your 5% of top earners would be) since the 1970's. Just for shits and giggles, I also put who was President during that time.
1971-1981 70% (Carter)
1982-1986 50% (Reagan)
1987 38.5% (Reagan)
1988-1990 28% (Bush I)
1991-1992 31% (Bush I)
1993-2000 39.6% (Clinton)
2001 39.1% (Bush II)
2002 38.6% (Bush II)
2003-2009 35% (Bush II)
2010 35% (Obama)
So right now, income tax rates for the top earners are LOWER than they were under Reagan and under Bush II.
The Reagan years are fondly remembered by Republicans as a time of great prosperity, if I'm not mistaken. And yet the taxes for the rich were much higher than they currently are now under Obama. But you freak out about Obama punishing the rich? Can you understand how illogical you're being? If you're going to hate Obama for a small tax increase on the top 5% of earners, then in order to avoid being a complete hypocrite, you would pretty much have to hate Reagan too, for how heavily he taxed these same individuals.
And as far as his "friends" go, I've already addressed this ludicrous statement with you on multiple occasions. I went to church from birth until about age 14. I'm not "friends" with the priest from that church, nor do I share his political views. I have many acquaintances, and have been to dinners and parties at their homes. That does not mean I share their political views. I do not even share my own MOTHER'S political views. So it is not only unfair to judge Obama by his acquaintances, it is a very inaccurate way of judging someone.
And no, I wouldn't say our healthcare is a mess, thanks. Does it have flaws? Of course. All systems do. Is it still better than your system? Oh my goodness yes.
And how do I know Canadians are happy?
We're happier than you are, anyway.
~Jennifer - posted on 05/03/2010
1st - that guy is a whack job.
Now - let me clarify a few things that have been going on LONG before the current President was inaugurated:
Penn Central Railroad 1970:
In May 1970, Penn Central Railroad, then on the verge of bankruptcy, appealed to the Federal Reserve for aid on the grounds that it provided crucial national defense transportation services. The Nixon administration and the Federal Reserve supported providing financial assistance to Penn Central, but Congress refused to adopt the measure. Penn Central declared bankruptcy on June 21, 1970, which freed the corporation from its commercial paper obligations. To counteract the devastating ripple effects to the money market, the Federal Reserve Board told commercial banks it would provide the reserves needed to allow them to meet the credit needs of their customers.
In August 1971, Congress passed the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act, which could provide funds to any major business enterprise in crisis. Lockheed was the first recipient. Its failure would have meant significant job loss in California, a loss to the GNP and an impact on national defense.
Franklin National Bank 1974:
In the first five months of 1974 the bank lost $63.6 million. The Federal Reserve stepped in with a loan of $1.75 billion.
New York City 1975:
During the 1970s, New York City became over-extended and entered a period of financial crisis. In 1975 President Ford signed the New York City Seasonal Financing Act, which released $2.3 billion in loans to the city.
In 1979 Chrysler suffered a loss of $1.1 billion. That year the corporation requested aid from the government. In 1980 the Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act was passed, which provided $1.5 billion in loans to rescue Chrysler from insolvency. In addition, the government's aid was to be matched by U.S. and foreign banks.
Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company 1984 :
Then the nation's eighth largest bank, Continental Illinois had suffered significant losses after purchasing $1 billion in energy loans from the failed Penn Square Bank of Oklahoma. The FDIC and Federal Reserve devised a plan to rescue the bank that included replacing the bank's top executives.
Savings & Loan 1989:
After the widespread failure of savings and loan institutions, President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989.
Airline Industry 2001:
The terrorist attacks of September 11 crippled an already financially troubled industry. To bail out the airlines, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, which compensated airlines for the mandatory grounding of aircraft after the attacks. The act released $5 billion in compensation and an additional $10 billion in loan guarantees or other federal credit instruments.
Bear Stearns 2008:
JP Morgan Chase and the federal government bailed out Bear Stearns when the financial giant neared collapse. JP Morgan purchased Bear Stearns for $236 million; the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion credit line to ensure the sale could move forward.
Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac 2008:
On Sep. 7, 2008, Fannie and Freddie were essentially nationalized: placed under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Under the terms of the rescue, the Treasury has invested billions to cover the companies' losses. Initially, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put a ceiling of $100 billion for investments in each company. In February, Tim Geithner raised it to $200 billion. The money was authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
American International Group (A.I.G.) 2008:
On four separate occasions, the government has offered aid to AIG to keep it from collapsing, rising from an initial $85 billion credit line from the Federal Reserve to a combined $180 billion effort between the Treasury ($70 billion) and Fed ($110 billion). ($40 billion of the Treasury’s commitment is also included in the TARP total.)
Auto Industry 2008:
In late September 2008, Congress approved a more than $630 billion spending bill, which included a measure for $25 billion in loans to the auto industry. These low-interest loans are intended to aid the industry in its push to build more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles. The Detroit 3 -- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -- will be the primary beneficiaries.
Troubled Asset Relief Program 2008:
In October 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which authorized the Treasury Department to spend $700 billion to combat the financial crisis. Treasury has been doling out the money via an alphabet soup of different programs.
Citigroup received a $25 billion investment through the TARP in October and another $20 billion in November. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) Additional aid has come in the form of government guarantees to limit losses from a $301 billion pool of toxic assets. In addition to the Treasury's $5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $10 billion and the Federal Reserve up to about $220 billion.
Bank of America 2009: (Ooooo we're ** finally** @ 2009!-- Obama's inauguration year)
Bank of America has received $45 billion through the TARP, which includes $10 billion originally meant for Merrill Lynch. (That $45 billion is also included in the TARP total.) In addition, the government has made guarantees to limit losses from a $118 billion pool of troubled assets. In addition to the Treasury's $7.5 billion commitment, the FDIC has committed $2.5 billion and the Federal Reserve up to $87.2 billion.
........and just think... after ALL of that, the Catholic church is still in operation......
Children? Can you spell propaganda? Yes, I knew you could....
Isobel - posted on 05/06/2010
By the way...just a little research...apparently our barbaric abortion laws (and progressive sex ed programs) result in Canada providing approximately half the abortions that America does...interesting
Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Russia: 19.2885 per 1,000 people
# 2 Bulgaria: 13.0232 per 1,000 people
# 3 Hungary: 7.69032 per 1,000 people
# 4 Cuba: 7.39958 per 1,000 people
# 5 Sweden: 4.16452 per 1,000 people
# 6 United States: 4.0945 per 1,000 people
# 7 Norway: 2.9767 per 1,000 people
# 8 New Zealand: 2.76902 per 1,000 people
# 9 Iceland: 2.71958 per 1,000 people
# 10 Japan: 2.69214 per 1,000 people
# 11 France: 2.65644 per 1,000 people
# 12 Israel: 2.47077 per 1,000 people
# 13 Italy: 2.30861 per 1,000 people
# 14 Canada: 2.15056 per 1,000 people
# 15 Finland: 1.8924 per 1,000 people
# 16 Germany: 1.18811 per 1,000 people
# 17 India: 0.552036 per 1,000 people
# 18 Greece: 0.113986 per 1,000 people
# 19 Poland: 0.0144976 per 1,000 people
Weighted average: 4.2 per 1,000 people
Isobel - posted on 05/04/2010
I like Toronto too ;D
We have a mixed economy (same as you)...but we lean a little further to the left.
Our banks are not allowed to merge without government approval (that's what stops them from getting too big to fail), they are limited regarding what products they are allowed to sell (sub-prime mortgages anyone?).
We also have a strong universal health care system (which is not perfect but thank god not fun for profit...cause when you run health care for profit, insurance companies and drug companies become tyrants. (I far prefer the government's "tyrany" thank you.
All of our "socialist" checks and balances are the reason that Canada has barely felt this global recession at all. (In fact I read an article the other day that was called "Great Depression/Great Escape"
I don't understand how people think that Obama has some crazy agenda when a republican passed the patriot act...do you even understand what rights and freedoms you lost with that??? Our "socialist" government would never, ever think to try that with us...
This conversation has been closed to further comments
Johnny - posted on 05/06/2010
And just to go way out on a limb, while I do support much of what our human rights legislation has done for our country and many of the human rights tribunals decisions. There are some that are significantly questionable and would suggest that this legislation or at the very least its practice needs some reassessment.
Good legislation and good intentions, but problematic results, I do agree.
Now, as for the assertions about Obama seeking to overturn term limits... stuff like that just makes any sensible arguments made in a post disappear into the vapor.
Johnny - posted on 05/06/2010
And further evidence of the outcomes of our barbaric abortion laws:
Incidence of later abortion:
* Canada: During the year 2003:
6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks
2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks
0.8% over 20 weeks. This sample included procedures carried out in
hospitals and clinics.
^ Statistics Canada. (2003). Percentage distribution of induced abortions by gestation period. Retrieved April 19, 2007.
* United States: In 2003: (from data collected in those areas that sufficiently
reported gestational age)
6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks
4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks
1.4% at or after 21 weeks.
Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on
abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions
performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of
abortions performed after viability. In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute
estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or
approximately 1,032 per year.
^ a b Strauss, L.T., Gamble, S.B., Parker, W.Y, Cook, D.A., Zane, S.B., & Hamdan, S. (November 24, 2006). Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 55 (11), 1-32. Retrieved May 10, 2007.
^ Guttmacher Institute. (January 1997). The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion.
Isobel - posted on 05/06/2010
One more thing...you say that we don't like Americans...I am curious to see ONE quote where one Canadian here has disparaged America. It hasn't happened.
I, for one, LOVE America. I have family that lives in New York, I vacation in Maine every summer, and I have lived in California...I LOVE your Country! And most of your people!
Isobel - posted on 05/06/2010
I think that the likelihood of Obama choosing a right wing conservative judge would be just about as likely as GWB picking a left wing liberal one. Obama has already stated that he was looking to find a judge with similar opinions as the one retiring...and guess what? He was a liberal.
I am extremely proud of Canada's anti-hate speech laws...you are not allowed to incite violence or hate against protected groups in public...feel free to say whatever you want to your own audience (on your own property or in your own church).
Allowing a 16 year old girl, who is physically or sexually abused by family members to get an abortion without risking her life when her father found out and LOST IT...is just fine with me.
I agree with educating women on the choices they make, especially with birth control, but also with abortion...give them all the facts (no emotion, no persuasion) and let them make their own choices.
Amie - posted on 05/06/2010
So I'm going to see if I can get this straight.
The government is making parental decisions for me?
I'm not supposed to blame parents for how they raised their kids, I'm supposed to blame the government?
My government makes no parental decisions for me. Just because abortions are available, that is not them making a decisions. That's them providing an option. Which are two very different things. Why on earth would I blame the government for poor parenting skills and a poor parent-child relationship? That is in no way their fault, at all.
Of course I don't think he will nominate a conservative. It would be amazing if he did but I'm not going to be shocked if he doesn't.
And yes I will give you that we never know what a President is always doing or planning. Few people do, few people have that security clearance. Look at Watergate and that proves your point well enough.
Krista - posted on 05/06/2010
You also did not address the people that Obama surrounds and surrounded himself with. How about Ayers, Dohrn and Resko?
Actually yes. I did address that. On multiple occasions. I remember saying to you at one point that Ayers and Dorhn were doing their thing back when Obama was 10, so it's a little silly to tar him with the same brush. I ALSO said, in this very thread, that just because you know someone, or even associate with someone, it does not mean that you share their political views.
Like I said, my political views are quite different from my own MOTHER's on several topics. My political views are different from my husband's in some ways as well. So it's ridiculous for you to assume that Obama shares the same political views as Ayers, Dorn, et al -- especially where I am guessing that his association with them is not as close as that I have with my husband.
Evidently that's hard for you to comprehend.
Rosie - posted on 05/06/2010
i would like to say something about the whole waiting to be seen by a doctor thing. i live in the united states, and i just had to wait from the end of january till last tuesday to have my son seen by a psychologist to help figure out if he has aspergers or some other sort of social disorder. they still aren't clear on what is going on with him and so i have to have him seen by someone else there, and will have to wait another 2 months or more to see that person. i've already been waiting long enough to have him seen because i was told 4 years ago by another psychologist there was nothing to worry about. i don't know why people claim we don't wait a long time here.
also when lucas was 10 months old he picked up a curling iron and burnt the crap out of his hand. i called his doctors office to see if i should take him into emergency or wait till the next day to see them (it was late). they told me to go to emergency. i was there for 2 hours before he was even seen by a triage nurse. while waiting i was talking to a man who had been there for 5 hours, and he was complaining of chest pains. 5 HOURS for chest pains. needless to say my childs blistered hand was going to wait until the morning to be seen. if we were there for another minute i thought i would explode.
our system is really crappy sometimes.
Jenny - posted on 05/06/2010
I stand PROUD of all our decisions in the examples you showed except for the banning of Galloway. We kept Westboro Church out of the country and Ann Coulter got a firm warming that we don't tolerate hate speech in our country and she could be held criminally responsible. See, wingnuts don't get to run the show up here. LBGT individuals are equals in our country and we put their protection above the protection of religion. Yay Canada!
Religions, to me, deserve no more respect than any other community or hobby group. Your religion is well protected where it should be, in your home and in your church. Outside of that is public domain which we are ALL free to enjoy away from hate speech.
Diane - posted on 05/06/2010
AMIE said, “I do not agree with you on the abortion front; however depending on the age of the minor I might take issue with not being notified of my child having one. It does not mean that I would stop her or force her to keep her child but I would like to be there to support her and find out why she felt she couldn't come to me. Ultimately if your child feels they need to hide something from you, at any time, that is the parents failing not the child's or the governments.”
Your views about abortion do not surprise me. You might like and want the government to make parental decisions for your children but I do not. The fact that in our country you need to have parental permission to get a tattoo and you can go kill a living human being is outrageous. Blame the parent and not the government…..sigh.
Just curious …..what kind of a person do you think Obama will nominate to SCOTUS? You think it will be a person across the aisle? Think that he will be conservative, Republican?
“Well unless you believe he's going to find a way for the House to impeach all he opposes, force them to retire/resign or kill them off. /:)”
Well just who knows what the president is doing eh? He works behind closed doors to change a lot of things. He has people right now working on legislation that would change the number of terms a president can serve. I think he is not planning on leaving. LOL He better start looking at the polls. I think there was also talk that he was going to find some excuse to postpone the November elections.
Krista…………Obama a centrist? That is such a joke I won’t even make comment on it. he couldn't find the center of anything if he tried.
“Yes, Obama voted against banning late-term abortions. And I think that was the right decision. Please do me a favour: go and read some of these stories of women who had late-term abortions.”
This is a field where I have expertise in. I have worked in this area with different groups for over ten years and I know firsthand what is going on.. I would suggest reading LIME 5 by Mark Crutcher. He documents thousands of actual cases that are happening and have happened regarding safe and legal abortion especially the legal law suit side. Everything is legally documented in the book with case and file numbers.
But I highly doubt this would do any good because usually those who are pro-abortion will not listen. They think all information that contradicts abortion is propaganda. They do not want to go near the truth because they want killing always as an option. So for them late term abortions are great because it gets the woman out of a bad situation. You do not consider the life inside the womb a person so for you….abortion all abortion is ok. Am I right?
And I mean acceptable up until the 9th month. Because you certainly would not want to enslave women who do not want to have children, so hiring a killer is ok. You do admit that abortion kills a life don't you? Or are you one of those what think the life in the womb isnt a life and a person until its born?
So you call all the sites and information I put on here propaganda and you want me to read yours that is not? HAHA
I know what is going on and the media will not put it on the front page.
You are the one who should read the stats and do your homework. You want killing legal and you obviously see nothing immoral about it. I find that barbaric. Canada has NO criminal law restricting abortion at all, not even gestational limits. Happy? Killing makes people happy? A nation happy that kills to solve problems. I don't want your kind of happy. A woman in your country can walk in any abortion clinic even at 9 months and kill. Is that moral something to be proud of?
And for your information….if you post stats with quotes, also include where you get the information. Canadian education might exclude teaching you that one. Without documentation...what you post does not carry weight.
You also did not address the people that Obama surrounds and surrounded himself with. How about Ayers, Dohrn and Resko?
You know I realize that this is off topic but because you shared your dislike for America and Americans I will go into defensive mode.
You say your country is darn near perfect. Why then do we have this immigration problem? Then why does our country have the most immigrants of any nation on earth? Why do people die to get across the border; the Canadian dream or the American one?
At least we have free speech and allow people to disagree and protest. You do not allow that, not really.
“Almost any opinion can be voiced at U.S. colleges these days – but not in Canada. The government prevented British MP George Galloway from entering Canada last year – ostensibly because he was a financial supporter of the terrorist group Hamas, not because he’s pro-Palestinian and hostile to Israel. Hmm.”……………. “human rights commissars who in Canada increasingly have power to decide what words, ideas and views are acceptable and “free,” and what is hateful and forbidden – witness recent celebrated cases against Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.”…………” human rights bodies “protect only those individuals who are members of groups currently in favor . . . such as gays, feminists Muslims, francophones and immigrants.” Relegated to the back of the bus are “men, Christians, Jews, English-speakers, those of European descent.”…………..
When government tells you what you can and cannot say in the political context, then free speech is essentially dead.
They did that in Canada’s human rights hate speech law.
I do not even think you can criticize the government can you?
Human Rights Tribunals will haul people up if they do not like what they say, especially if they criticize minorities.
You are a model of just what could happen to us and it scares me to death.
Here are a few examples.
In January 2006, Catholic city councilman JOHN DECICCO of Kamloops, British Columbia, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural” (LifeSiteNews, Jan. 19, 2007). In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” DeCiccco told LifeSiteNews, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.”
“In 2005 in Alberta FRED HENRY, Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, was subject to two complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after publishing a pastoral letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year. (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008). Bishop Henry told Zenit: “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”
“In February 2007 complaints were brought before the Human Rights Commission targeting CATHOLIC INSIGHT magazine and priest ALPHONSE DE VALK, a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents to refute “same-sex marriage.” The complaint was brought by homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton. He accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. de Valk says, “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” adding that opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons (“Canada’s Human Rights Beef with Catholics,” Zenit, Feb. 5, 2008).”
“In 2007, in British Columbia, a complaint was made against MACLEAN’S MAGAZINE (Canada’s leading newsweekly) for publishing an excerpt from MARK STEYN’S book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. The article, published in October 2006, was entitled “The Future Belongs of Islam.” The complaint was brought by Naiyer Habib and Mohamed Elmasry, an imam and president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. Elmasry appeared on the Michael Coren Show in Toronto in 2004 and said that anyone in Israel over the age of 18 was a justifiable target of Palestinian attacks (“Mark Steyn Human Rights Tribunal,” LifeSiteNews, June 3, 2008). He later apologized, but his basic outlook is obvious. Yet he had the audacity to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the MacLean’s article portrayed Muslims as “inhuman” and “violent.” The case was referred to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which opened its proceedings against Steyn and the magazine in June 2008.”
“In March 2008 the Canadian government ordered MACGREGOR MINISTRIES, an apologetics ministry, shut down because its reference materials were ‘critical’ of the beliefs of those who are not Christian (WorldNetDaily, March 21, 2008). Lorri MacGregor told WND that Canada’s version of a ‘hate crimes’ law prevented their work from continuing as it had for nearly 30 years. The ministry was ordered to either make wholesale changes in its presentations, or shut down. They were required to say that all religions are equal, stop publishing their magazine on cults, remove all offending material from their website, and stop selling any products teaching about cults. Refusing to operate under those conditions, they moved the ministry to America.”
How is Canada following there anymore?
In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a party, declared that, quote: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’
“The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed, quote, 1. ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press.’
“In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote: ‘2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.’
What happened to free speech in Canada?
I might be against something but would never want to silence them. I think groups and individuals have a right to say WHATEVER THEY WISH TO SAY. That even goes for groups like the KKK. Homosexuals, minorities etc... have the right to free speech.
Rosie - posted on 05/06/2010
how can anyone actually watch this the whole way through and not think to themselves, man, there is something really fucked up with this guy? evil? masterplan? WTF is he talking about? seriously, if you want people to listen to you diane try using a reasonable argument other than obama has an evil masterplan and that he's out to get us. you sound like a loon for saying you believe this. i would respect your opinion a hell of a lot more if you argued with facts about why you don't like him or his policies. This kindof goes back to the WTF thread. say something credible instead of making up things, and spreading unfounded paranoia, and we'd (dems and republicans) would get alot a hell of a lot better and maybe be able to figure some things out to help our country. this video doesn't help that.
Krista - posted on 05/05/2010
Exactly. We watch The Daily Show. You guys don't watch This Hour has 22 Minutes. We watch CNN. You probably don't watch CBC. We hear about American news every night on TV. On your news, you don't hear anything about any other country unless it involves the U.S., or unless it's a huge, major tragedy. Your country is a little bit insular, so citizens have to put some real effort into learning about other countries. Up here, to NOT know anything about the U.S., you'd have to be living under a rock.
Isobel - posted on 05/05/2010
And in our defense, 90% of our media is American...many Canadians (myself included) know far more about America's politics than Canada's. It's sad to admit but unfortunately true.
While I agree that you must be immersed in a culture to understand it, I could argue that we, in Canada ARE entirely immersed in your culture up to our eyeballs.
The reason for this is simple 80% of our trade is with the US (something like 95% of us live within a hundred miles of your border). 80% of America's trade is with itself...you guys don't NEED to know anyone else.
Amie - posted on 05/05/2010
Jamie I agree with a lot of what you said. I use Canada as an example because I am Canadian (as are a few of us) and we know it CAN work.
I found out recently too that one of our provinces have an option on their tax returns to donate their refund (if they're entitled to one) back to the government to help pay down our national debt. While not everyone takes that option, there are some that do. Something like that would be beneficial for the US. While it might not yield a lot, every little bit counts when it comes to debt.
I've thought for quite some time that NASA is an unneeded program and it is absolutely ridiculous how much the government spends on it. If it is popular, it will get the funding it needs in the free market.
I have no real opinion on lobbyists honestly. I understand that they can use underhanded tactics but at the same time I can see that some are needed. They are there for a specific cause.
I don't see the problem with earmarkers either honestly, so long as they follow the restrictions that they should have placed on them. If it's a free for all, then yes I would have a problem with it. That's not fiscally responsible.
Jenny explained I think the best on why the bailouts were necessary so I'm going to parrot her >>"The country has put more power with corporations than your citizens, then the companies got SO large that their failure would have devastating results for the entire nation. They absolutely need to be broken down."
Jamie - posted on 05/05/2010
I think it's wonderful for the Canadian citizens that your country is able to do it's job effectively. Unfortunately, fiscal responsibility hasn't exactly been very high on the U.S. govt. list of things it thinks are important.
I have absolutely no problem paying higher taxes (or any at all, in my case) in order to get us out of this tough economical time, but i feel that unless the government curbs it's out of control spending habits, higher taxes won't do anything but depress the small businesses, and upper-middle income households.
Refusing to cut funding to unneeded government programs, forcing funding suspensions for highly popular government programs (like NASA), and continuing to pander to lobbyists, writing earmarks into bills, and bailing out corrupt corporations is not the answer.
I often see Canada used as a role-model for the United States, but our immigration statistics, along with the sheer volume of people taking advantage of government services, i think that it is irresponsible to think that what works for one country should work for another.
Should the United States decide to reform immigration, reform spending, or reform tax laws, we might be in a similar situation to your country, but as of yet, our government seems set on ignoring glaring issues so that it might continue to spend money it doesn't have... causing a global decline, and indebting us further to other countries.
Amie - posted on 05/05/2010
In Canada somewhere between 35-40% (can't remember exact number I'd have to look it up again) of our citizens are the only ones fully paying into taxes. Our government programs (which are far more substantial than the US) still manage to run just fine.
While money is important, it's also important in how it's managed. Our government on the whole has generally been fiscally responsible. They raise taxes when it's needed and then lower them when things stabilize. It's all about balance and even though no one likes paying higher taxes, it is a necessity for any government to continue on and do their job.
Jamie - posted on 05/05/2010
I'm not watching the video, i don't believe it's credible. I do know Obama has very close pro-choice "Catholic" allies, as many democratic presidents have.. I think they believe that the majority of the Catholic vote is pro-choice, when it is not. Unfortunately, you can't be Catholic and pro-choice. So for me, the issue is really, moot. People like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Kerry will eventually have to reconcile the fact that they're scandalizing non-Catholics about what the Catholic Church teaches.
I think that other countries are taught a lot about America, but a lot of that is incorrect. In order to truly understand a country, you have to have spent a great deal of time there, talking to citizens, taking part in the system, or have lived there for an extended period of time.
My husband had a conversation with a Sweedish woman the other week, and she told him that she was taught via school education, and later the news, that no one in America was able to get treated for anything, that the hospitals were shutting down, and that we were in the throes of such an econimical depression we were desperate for any scrap of government "help" we could get. My husband explained to her that it is bad, but it's not that bad. We have government programs in place to help people who can't afford health care, we have housing for people who can't afford it, we have welfare, food stamps, etc. All programs paid for by our income taxes, which are available to every U.S. Citizen who qualifies. There are doctors offices and hospitals willing to work directly with patients in order to get them the care they need at a price they can afford. At this time, a person on governemnt assistance can get the same care I get with private insurance. I was surprised to learn that this woman had no idea that these things were available in the U.S.
Unfortunately, even though i'm in a position to pay income taxes, which i feel are my fair share... this year my husband and i did not pay, neither did my sister and her husband. In fact, both of our families received more back than we paid in. This is an attempt by the Obama administration to playcate those households they have deemed "worthy" of government hand-outs. I wonder how long we will be able to sustain our government assistance programs, or once the health care bill comes into effect how it will be sustained, without the benefit of federal income taxes from fully 50% of the households in the United States.
From this thread I gather that there are a fair number of Canadians who feel the need to voice their opinions in this group. I think, if you feel arguing United States politics on the internet is a good and productive way for you to spend your time, that's fine... but forgive me if i take your posts with a grain of salt.
Other than that, i think a lot of the posts in this group are inflammatory, using language that is meant to incite a reaction. I don't think this is appropriate or worthy of a group that is supposed to be based in political debate, not ideological arguments and junk rhetoric. I think that if we can't get ourselves off our high horses long enough to hear what others are saying and participate in legitimat debate, we are part of a growing trend of name calling and knee jerk reactions. Frankly, it offends and saddens me. I understand how one can lose respect for an entire demographic, based on their opinions, but i know that it is more important to treat people as individuals with individual opinions and experiences.
Amie - posted on 05/05/2010
Alright, I haven't posted for some time here but I have been watching.
Diane your theories on Canada are very flawed.
We are taught a thorough education about the states from a very young age. It is a part of our curriculum. Whereas in the states, you curriculum covers very little of other countries at all. We learn about the US because we have to know, the US is considered an ally and there is a lot of cross border workings.
Our news coverage has, multiple times a day, the goings on of what's happening in the states, especially the big issues. This happens because what happens in the states very often does/can directly affect Canada.
I am with Laura on the UHC front. If you do not live in one, it is very hard for you to speculate on it. Especially when you don't look at information objectively and swallow all of the propaganda you read/hear! YES we have wait times. The wait times are there because the people who are in the most need get shuffled to the top of the list. IF you have a serious problem you are the first seen. People who can wait, will wait. It is not rationing, it is taking care of our sickest citizens first. It's not taking care of who can pay first. (which really is a bogus way for ANY health care to be run)
Redistributing the wealth does not equal the rich paying for everything. If that was true my husband and I would not pay as many taxes as we do here. If you want to know how something like that would work, ask people who already live in a system that you are questioning. Even at that, the wealthy will always find loopholes (just like everyone else) to keep their portion of what they pay down, just like they do now.
I agree with you on the school aspect though. I don't agree with taking away grades unless a suitable grading system can be implemented. In my children's school system they use exceeding, meeting, beginning to meet and not meeting to gauge the kids. At least the younger ones, older kids get percentages instead of the alphabet for grades.
What is wrong with being anti-gun anyway? Do all homes really need them? I don't want to hear about burglaries or home invasions, we have those here too. Our gun laws are a lot stricter and we still manage fine.
I do not agree with you on the abortion front; however depending on the age of the minor I might take issue with not being notified of my child having one. It does not mean that I would stop her or force her to keep her child but I would like to be there to support her and find out why she felt she couldn't come to me. Ultimately if your child feels they need to hide something from you, at any time, that is the parents failing not the child's or the governments.
As for the Supreme Court, are you really complaining that he opposes people who are already seated? Really? Are there no other issues you can bring up besides something so trivial? Now if you had a complaint about who he may next back for the newly opened seat come June, well then that I could debate with you. But it really is a waste of time and energy to complain about him opposing people who have lifetime seats on the Supreme Court. Well unless you believe he's going to find a way for the House to impeach all he opposes, force them to retire/resign or kill them off. /:)
Celia - posted on 05/04/2010
HA! We can tell you whats happening in alot of places around the world because we pay attention!!
Cant help it if most Americans are only taught about their own country...
The fact you find it implausible that Canadians know what Obama is doing and how your government works just shows your own ignorance.
Pleaze back at you!
Diane - posted on 05/04/2010
I AM NOT ALONE BECAUSE THE COUNTRY IS QUESTIONING HIS POLICIES.
I have rational arguments. I post facts and links to the facts. How many of you do that?
RUTH said, “Also a few things about me, I don't think Obama is the Anti-Christ. I don't agree with him about a LOT of issues but I think that in his heart he thinks what he is trying to do is good for this country.”
I respectfully disagree with you. Obama’s abortion views are bad enough… then he votes to take control from parents. I do not believe that Obama is the anti-christ, but I do not think he is the Messiah either like Farrakhan calls him. I think the people he surrounds himself with are dangerous people who hate American. I have listened to Wrights sermons and they are racist, narrow minded and provoke hatred. You talk about hate speech…….listen to a sermon.
Dohrn , Ayers, Wright, Farrakhan…..all friends with radical pasts. I do not think he cares about America at all; in fact he shows no respect for the country or those dignitaries visiting from other countries. I do not even think Obama supporters know what he is all about. He was a different person during the campaign.
You want to know why I do not like Obama….ok the facts.
I cannot respect anyone who champions the right for women to kill the unborn, let alone Obama who voted against banning partial birth abortions. Then as if that was not enough he voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
He wants the government to have total control.
He opposed four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.
He endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. He also voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.
Did you know that he was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and "research."
Obama has the voting record of a extremely hard-left socialist. That is the direction he is taking us. He wants to redistribute the wealth forcing the rich to pay for everything.
Obama said, “I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need. And for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well — even though they’ve been working hard, and I appreciate that — I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear, it’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you — that they’ve got a chance at success too.”
Lets not give A's in our schools because someone might be offended that they did not get one. Take that red marker the teacher uses so the kid won't see the correction as anything bad. And lets give free vacations to those who never can afford to go.......hey the rich can pay for those too.
Wow……..he appreciates the hard work of those he will rape while he takes their money to foot the bill for the trillions he has added to the tab/debt.
This statement takes the cake.
“There is nothing in the world that ticks me off more than Republicans spouting off about a system that they know NOTHING about (and I'm not talking about you...I'm talking about the idiots on TV that misinform their viewers just to make people frightened of Obama).”
And where are you from? Aren’t you from Canada? We can’t tell you what is happening in Canada because we are not citizens, but you can be critical of our system and those who question Obama? Pleaze.
Propoganda? No just the truth to those who can tell the difference between what is right and wrong.
Diane - posted on 05/04/2010
KRISTA said, “Pray tell, how do you then explain that Canada, which has universal healthcare, nationally regulated banks, and all of those horrible things, still has a very healthy freedom of religion?”
Healthcare is a mess and as for freedom of press and religion, don’t think so not since the hate crimes bill was passed. So all your people are happy? How do you know all of them are happy? Yes, and there are no long lines for healthcare/procedures in Canada?
Oh you have problems with the system alright.
And Laura you do have wait times depending on what area of the country you reside in. I know people who have come to the states to be treated because they could not wait any longer…one for a hip replacement and one for heart surgery.
Why do people risk life and limb to come to the United States? Why do we have more immigrants than any other country in the world? We are doing something right.
"In terms of the U.S., it's widely known that no other countries can really match the economic, educational, and social mobility for people in all walks of life," Batalova said.
And to boot we are the most charitable nation on earth.
I know we are hated, some posts here show that. But when push comes to shove and countries need our help, we always show up physically and monitarily.
KRISTA said, “He also likes to run over little old ladies in the road, drinks the blood of baby bunny rabbits, and if you look REALLY closely under that very close-cropped hair, you'll see horns.”
You all joke but you rarely say anything to show that I am wrong. You idolize Obama, so you wouldn’t see truth if it hit you in the face. The horns are real and you can see that by looking at his voting record and his actions since becoming president.
KATE……….you are right, I do not like Obama and believe he is a hypocrite and a master manipulator. He lied to get elected and the changes he has implemented have not gone over well with the American public.
Why if he is doing such a great job……. Are the poll numbers so low?
Do Americans think we are headed in the right direction? NO
Celia - posted on 05/04/2010
It's amazing what people pass for news these days.
I's laugh, but the same people who watch things like that and Fox actually vote.
It's amazing Obama actually got into office with this kind of pure crap spit shined into "news"
ME - posted on 05/04/2010
"Honestly, maybe true Communism would be a good thing, but you can't change Human Nature, but at least Capitalism and Democracy do the Most Good for the Most people! and both are based on Judeo/Christian beliefs."
Capitalism is based on Utilitarianism and Laissez faire economic, neither of which have anything to do with Christianity, and one of which explicitly condems it as a form of superstition used to control people!
Krista - posted on 05/04/2010
I basically echo everything Laura just said.
I used to work for a medical insurance company. Yes, we do have private insurance in Canada. Often people will get it to "top up" their insurance, to cover things that their government plan doesn't, like eyeglasses and dental care.
When I worked for this company, I remember overhearing the underwriters. They were always looking for a reason to deny someone coverage, because they were too risky. I remember overhearing the claims adjudicators.They were always looking for reasons not to approve claims, but to decline them.
A private insurance company is basically ruled by one thing: the bottom line. Profit. And when you are an insurance company, the most efficient way to increase profit is to minimize your risk and to minimize your payouts. That tends to translate into policyholders getting the shaft.
For non-urgent treatments and surgeries, there can be a bit of a wait, but it's usually not that onerous. My husband had to have knee surgery, due to knee pain and the occasional situation where his knee would give out on him altogether. From his first appointment, to his MRI, to his arthroscopic surgery, was a grand total of about 4 months. But here's the kicker: we did not walk out with a bill -- at all. Not even a co-pay. If we had lived in the U.S., he might have decided to not get treatment at all, depending on whether we could afford the insurance and/or treatment. So a wait time of a few months is small potatoes, when you consider that in the U.S., we likely would not have been able to afford to get the surgery in ANY number of months.
But really, our wait times are minimal. I called my son's pediatrician yesterday to see him about a rash. We had our appointment today at noon.
And once again, I did not walk out with a bill.
Yes, I'm paying for it with my income taxes. But you know what? I've had a breast reduction. I was hospitalized for a kidney stone. I had a baby. I've had regular doctor's visits. I'm pretty sure that if I had had this stuff done in the U.S., my bills would have LONG since outstripped what I have actually paid in income taxes during my lifetime.
Isobel - posted on 05/04/2010
Where to start where to start.
Yup, there are cases of treatments that are too expensive to be covered by the government...you are free to get them, if you want to pay yourself...our government, however says no a whole lot less than most insurance companies.
You are terrified of our wait times because you are clearly a victim of propoganda. My father has diabetes, he has since he was 12. He has never had to wait to see a doctor, he has had many, many surgeries, and when doctors recommended that his leg needed to be removed (and he refused) he was given at home care for a year trying to save the leg as well as several surgeries trying to save the leg.
My best friend has a daughter who was born without a spleen, she developed bacterial menengitis and the infection affected her growth plates. She will never grow to be over 4 10, and one leg is longer than the other. It also stopped her from developing enamel on her teeth and as a ten year old has a full set of dentures. Every time this child developes a fever, my friend has to take her to the World Renowned Sick Kids Hospital, and has never once had to stand in line for even 10 minutes.
There is nothing in the world that ticks me off more than Republicans spouting off about a system that they know NOTHING about (and I'm not talking about you...I'm talking about the idiots on TV that misinform their viewers just to make people frightened of Obama).
There are wait times here...generally for elective procedures and to be perfectly honest, that's totally cool with me. Most countries in the developed world have a shortage of GPs, that's because we pay specialists more period. Something needs to be done about that everywhere. I personally like the idea of loan forgiveness for doctors who spend a certain amount of time as a GP.
As for socialism...I said we have a mixed economy...and so do you...we just have more programs.
Ruth - posted on 05/04/2010
would it surprise you that I mostly agree with you? I also believe that banks should not be allowed to merge (but for any reason). I also agree that being allowed to sell sub-prime morgages was a very bad thing. But, take a step back and see where that comes from. Those sub-prime morgages were originally approved by Government run "banking institutions" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the direction of Democrats like Chris Dodd and John Kerry. In an attempt to "diversify" homeownership, they basically forced lenders to make these bad loans... so in a way government interference actually created the problem that the current government is trying to solve.
Can you understand why I am scepticle of "government"?
I am very glad you like your health system. and I am sure that for a majority of healthy people the Canadian system works very well! But for someone like me (with mulitple health problems) even the possiblity of even moderate wait times before I can seek treatment terrify me. And also I would like your opinion do you think that in the Canadian system there is any rationing of care? I do know that it's fairly easy to look up and know that there are certain treatments (for cancer among others) that are not availiable in Canada because they are "too expensive, or "not fiscally sound" I.E. they only will help a few so the cost benefit ratio is not good enough to make said treatment worth it. Would you agree with that statement?
Although I think maybe we are getting a bit confused in either our stances or our terminology. Merriam-Webster defines socialism as any of the various social and political theories advocating Collective or Governmental ownership AND administration of the means of production and the distrubution of goods. From what I know of Canadian Government, it doesn't actually own things like the banks and other businesses that operate in your country. Am I correct or totally barking up the wrong tree there? Now I do have a question are your hospitals and clinics privately run (albeit mandated paid by the government) or are they directly run/owned by a government agency? (I am so loving picking your brain here... sadly I don't really know anyone who either lives or lived in Canada)
Now that being said. I have no problem with a Government dictating that banks cannot merge without permission or that they cannot sell instruments of insurance. (Although I would say that then the banks themselves or the chief executive officers cannot give campaign contributions to political candidate directly. not so much that they might buy votes to the appearance of impropritety is too strong). If you want to consider me in most cases a Strong Conservative Libertarian. in instances of finacial institutions I am strongly in favor of common sense REGULATIONS... however... I do not agree or believe that the government should be bailing out ANY industry, be it cars, or banks... or fishing... or farming (so no more subsidies either think of all the billions that would save as well). In that way I am decidely Anti-Social (hehe a little joke there)
And please don't be insulted by the Miss Laura, that's just the way I address people I don't know.
Also a few things about me, I don't think Obama is the Anti-Christ. I don't agree with him about a LOT of issues but I think that in his heart he thinks what he is trying to do is good for this country.
Also please don't refer to me as a tea bagger... such language is beneath all of us (I would hope) and its insulting and just plain mean. I can understand being mad at someone because of their postition on something.... but those of us who are members of the TEA party not crazy right wing nutcases... we have specific problems with portions of the government. And the majority of us (and there are plenty of both Republicans and Democrats in this with me) believe that the current modis operandi of the Federal government, tax and spend and tax and spend is going to send this country into financial ruin. Also we are not all "birthers" although I do know a few who are curious as to why he would spend thousands and thousands of dollars to fight to keep much of his personal records hidden, when most Presidents (at least in the modern era) gladly release their school transcripts and other similar records.
And Miss Laura I also completely agree with you that it should be a criminal offense to knowingly sell bad financial products, just the same as we would prosecute a businessman that knowingly sold tainted meat to the public.
Diane et. al:
I think that people might listen to your viewpoints if you had rational arguments and real conversation. It just appears that you hate Obama so much, that you're willing to slander him by any means necessary. This then, makes you appear that you're willing to buy into anything and therefore, I don't buy into much of what you have to say because you're clearly extreme. I voted for Obama, and I don't agree with everything he has said and done. That's okay. I can say that. I have some objectivity and know I'm not going to agree with the President on everything. But to call him "evil" and talk about a "master plan"?
Isobel - posted on 05/04/2010
I think that they should make it illegal for banks to sell insurance (it's illegal here...though they're always trying to get around it and lately they've been getting away with it and new legislation is on it's way), I think that there should be criminal ramifications for selling financial products that you KNOW are bad for the buyer. I think that the size of any media companies, insurance companies, drug companies and banks should be limited.
Sara - posted on 05/04/2010
This thread is an example of EXACTLY what is wrong with politics today. Why don't we debate REAL issues here, instead of whacked-out conspiracy threories where we call the President who was DEMOCRATICALLY elected by majority a socialist dictator? All this serves to do is deflect attention away from real issues. I can only assume that is Diane's purpose, not to mention the intention Tea Baggers and people of like-minded ilk. **Look at the monkey, look at the monkey**
Financial reform, anyone?
Honestly, where do you find this crap!? It's like watching the "six degrees of Kevin Bacon"! These "correlations" that these people come up with are mind boggling! Can't believe anyone would take it seriously! Is Michael Voris supposed to be some kind of "authority" or "expert"?? I would like to know in what....paranoid schizophrenia!!!
Ruth - posted on 05/04/2010
I think I have a pretty darn good grip with reality :-) I also understand that Canada is mostly a Socialist but they still follow Capitalism ecomonicly. Am I correct? are most business State held or in the hands of private citizens? I've been to Canada a few times, it's a very beautiful country. I particularly loved Toronto. And don't mistake me for one of those people who believe that all democrats subscribe to a master plan. I dislike President Obama because he doesn't SEEM to see America as a fundamentally Good Nation with specific problems that need to be fixed? Maybe I'm wrong and he does, but his soutions are exactly new (FDR anyone?) and they've been shown that they don't work. Personally I think the fundamental difference is that He seems to believe that the Government can create wealth (IE his stimulus and the fixing/saving jobs?). How can a governement that depends on it's people to provide it with the money to do ANYTHING actually create something without either destroying a private sector job, or taking money from the many to give it to the few?
Does that make me tin hat worthy?
Dana - posted on 05/04/2010
This is comical, master plan. LOL, I can't even begin to take any of this seriously. ANY of it.
President Obams is not an evil dictator, he's not a communist, he's not a socialist, he doesn't have some master plan. Both of you would do yourself a favor and your country a favor if you would get a grip with reality. It's actually frightening.
Krista - posted on 05/04/2010
He is a socialist, devious and evil. He wants a new America none like we have ever seen before. He surrounds himself with questionable people who hate America.
He also likes to run over little old ladies in the road, drinks the blood of baby bunny rabbits, and if you look REALLY closely under that very close-cropped hair, you'll see horns.
Get a grip.
Krista - posted on 05/04/2010
Diane -- seriously. Get out more. If you don't like Obama, that's one thing. But you're really starting to come across like someone in dire need of a tinfoil hat.
Oh, and with regards to this: "Man does not need God in a socialist state…they need the government."
Pray tell, how do you then explain that Canada, which has universal healthcare, nationally regulated banks, and all of those horrible things, still has a very healthy freedom of religion? Our country is a lot more socialist than yours, and yet....our people are happy. They go to church and can worship however they please. Our economy is healthier than yours. Our people are healthier than yours. I think you've really swallowed a ton of propaganda about various forms of government and various ways of life, and really should consider actually turning off the TV, stepping away from the computer, and maybe opening your eyes a little bit.
Ruth - posted on 05/03/2010
I wasn't trying to be condecending. When I address people directly I always use a either Miss or Mr. I'm sorry if I upset you but I type the way I speak and unless I know someone I never address them by just their first name. It's just the way I was taught.
Ruth - posted on 05/03/2010
What would be the consequences of not doing it? As long as we keep proping up this horribly dangerous business when will the system itself be fixed? the answer... NEVER. and we'll be right back here again in 80 years arguing over the same stupid thing. Let the companies fail. when they do yes it will hurt. (just like it hurts the first time you ever grabbed a hot pot on the stove, but you LEARNED not to do it a second time). And frankly I'd rather live through the pain of the economic downturn now, then simply kicking the can down the line to my child's time, or her children's time. Sooner or later you have to pay the piper! (and aptly enough, you have to pay even more when you're robbing peter to pay paul to pay off the piper for NOT doing his job).
If we keep bailing out companies, we should have bailed out the horse breeders and the people who make stagecoaches and wagons.... after all they deserved a job just as much as anyone... but they were put out of business because something better came along. How do we know that if AIG or GM went the way of the stagecoaches and wagons, the equivalent of the Car wouldn't have come along as well?
But it's still back to the personal responsiblity thing. as in personal responsiblity for the business decisions you make that affect the lives of the people in the business underneath you!
Jenny - posted on 05/03/2010
Ruth, I'd agree with your take on it but I'm going to go with the actual educated economists who agree the bailout was neccessary. The country has put more power with corporations than your citizens, then the companies got SO large that their failure would have devastating results for the entire nation. They absolutely need to be broken down. Now there is talk of the wworld's largest airline being formed. I hope the merger is turned down, have we learned nothing from this?
I think we are damn spoiled with our lifestyle here. We have no idea what actual poverty is in North America so when we hear people talk about a depression and the dire consequences of one we don't believe that would ever happen to us. So we blame the government for spending money. I don't like it but I am smart enough to realize the consequences of not doing it.
Ruth - posted on 05/03/2010
The problem with Obama's Government and Liberals in general. Is that they try to make people ashamed of being religious? I mean really on the introduction page to this thread one Mother actually felt like she had to Apologize because her religion might color her opinions? REALLY?? and it's not her fault. It's a Government that trys to erase (or rewrite) history to suit it's own purposes. Because Judeo/Christian beliefs stress personal responsiblility. Logic tells you that if personal responsiblity trumps everything, then it is your own job to make the most of your life (in your job/marriage/as a parent/ a friend/member of a community/ your spiritual health), then why does government need to provide it? for people who can't help themselves? how is it personal responsibility that only 49% of the people in this country actually pay taxes? The rest either break even or GET money (or the like) from the Governmental Coffers. You cannot use the government to do for you what you should be doing for yourself! And any government that tells you otherwise is just trying to buy your vote.
After all Alexander Tytler was the one that said "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." And how right he was.
And what bothers me is that the more people get away from concrete moral anchors, and enter into the realm of moral relativism society itself will slowly begin to destroy itself
Ruth - posted on 05/03/2010
And miss Jenn,
Do you notice that most of your bailouts were, up until 2008, spaced maybe a year or two out? There's a big difference between an occasional loan to an industry by the federal reserve (which admittidly should never happen anyway, let the free market correct itself and if an industry is truely needed than a replacement (or several) will step in and fill the void. Compare that to the MASSIVE bailouts in the last few years. (which Bush should never have signed off on, but it was passed by a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS).
But Obama's Presidency has been repeatedly marked by insults to Religion in General (except Islam, of course) and most especially Christianity! Just like his repeated insults to our Allies and his embracing of our enemies.... I realize the saying is keep your friends close and your enemies closer.... but it's NOT get rid of your friends!
Isobel - posted on 05/03/2010
Clearly not all priests were pedophiles...but that problem (with image or in truth, that many priests who were known pedophiles were simply moved to new churches over and over again) is what's destroying the catholic church...not Obama.
Many Christian churches INCLUDING the Catholic church have done many great things for humanity...
what does that have to do with Obama? BIG FAT ZERO
Ruth - posted on 05/03/2010
Ok explain something to me please? If Catholism or Religion in general is nothing, not needed by the populace, why is that whenever a truly Socialist Regime has acted to marginalize or destroy religion? In Hitler's Germany, religion was outlawed, in Socialist/Communist Russia (because contrary to what certain history books say, Russia was a Socialist state as opposed to a Communist one) The orthodox Church was outlawed? In Tibet and other countries dominated or held in bondage to China, their religious people are persecuted? What are they afraid of?
If Socialist/Communist policies are so darn good, why did they have to be lied about during the Cold War (thank you Walter Duranty... oh yeah he was a Communist Spy)
Honestly, maybe true Communism would be a good thing, but you can't change Human Nature, but at least Capitalism and Democracy do the Most Good for the Most people! and both are based on Judeo/Christian beliefs.
And something about the pedophile stuff. Not all priests were pediphiles and to Vilify an entire religion because of some horrible priests completely does NOT take into account the good that the Catholic Church had done for this world!
Diane - posted on 05/03/2010
We are not talking about sodomy. We are talking about Obamas master plan.
The nationalization of banks, the takeover of the automotive sector the socialization of health care, all in the plan to move us over to a socialist state. Socialism seeks to hush Christianity, it denys the central truth of the faith. Man does not need God in a socialist state…they need the government. The government is God. Obama targets hospitals, (wants the conscience clause gone) befriends pro-abortion Catholics and tries to make them ambassadors, gives speeches at Georgetown, Notre Dame, cozy ups to radical Catholic groups supported by George Soros…all attempts to help divide a faith.
Join Circle of Moms
Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.Join Circle of Moms