|
News: Obama's Shady Dealings
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Musicjunky318
Kennedy was a Senator for 8 years and served in the House for 6 years. Clinton was a governor for 13 years.
Obama popped out of nowhere.
|
Relatively Obama did pop out of nowhere, but better that than a hooligan like Bush.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/5/2009
Posts: 986
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
Relatively Obama did pop out of nowhere, but better that than a hooligan like Bush.
|
Oh well yea that goes without saying. You can't sink any lower.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Musicjunky318
Kennedy was a Senator for 8 years and served in the House for 6 years. Clinton was a governor for 13 years.
Obama popped out of nowhere.
|
inexperience should only be an excuse for his first term, imo. He's already had 4+ years experience as President now.
+, most of the controversies he's having now seem to boil down to a lack of morals and honesty.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
It's too late for this mess. I'll be back to clock the tea in the morning
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 31,471
|
I remember getting DRAGGED for saying Obama was going to be one of the worst presidents.
Oop
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/25/2012
Posts: 10,076
|
A biT of a mess, it feels like every other month we get to hear about some horrible cover-up under his wing.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/15/2010
Posts: 8,120
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DivaDown
I'm not sure why the younger generation hates Republicans.
I mean, Lincoln was an AMAZING person, politician & president. He so happen to be Republican. I mean, he always ranks high... especially concerning human rights!
Reagan also converted from Democrat to Republican, became president & pulled the economy out of the dumper. He was another amazing person, politician & president who survived an assassination attempt in my lifetime.
I mean, guys, don't stereotype Republicans... or anyone for that matter!
|
Because the current Republican Party is ruled by the Tea Party, they're a danger for this country moreso than Obama.
People on ATRL supporting a republican is a contradiction in itself, I asume most of us are gay/bisexual and have a liberal/progressive view on social issues. Would YOU seriously vote for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Rand Paul.
Lincoln/Reagan would be considered communists by that mess they call the republican party today.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/5/2009
Posts: 986
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
inexperience should only be an excuse for his first term, imo. He's already had 4+ years experience as President now.
+, most of the controversies he's having now seem to boil down to a lack of morals and honesty.
|
If he didn't have experience the first term he's not going to have experience the second term. Its that simple. On the job training doesn't fly when it comes to the presidency. The only reason why he's still there is because the Republicans are a joke.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/6/2012
Posts: 29,767
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Starburst
A biT of a mess, it feels like every other month we get to hear about some horrible cover-up under his wing.
|
True, but people who act like this is unusual are either too young, too naive, or too pressed to be taken seriously.
This is exactly what Bush's second term felt like as well. I was too young to remember Clinton's well, but even I remember it was a mess.
I don't mind if you don't like what he is doing. I don't like a lot of it either, but this hyperbole is over the top
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Wafflinson
Give me a break. Your arrogance is astounding. Just because I have a differing opinion than yours doesn't make me blind
Let me break down my opinion on the article.
It is well known that America has always been against international courts. They also refuse to recognize the International Criminal Court, All this segment really says is that the USA doesn't want anything to do with the court and corporations will have to deal with it themselves rather than depending on the government to fight for them.
In practice it would mean that companies would deal with governments directly, rather than by proxy through their own governments. I fail to see what people are pissed about on this one.
This is a reaction to international companies breaking patent laws. Essentially Pharma companies spend BILLIONS to develop these drugs, only to have companies in India steal the design and sell them for a fraction of what the people who make the drugs do.
In the short term you can say that these cheaper drugs are a good thing since it helps the third world. In the long term though it takes away the motivation to make new drugs. Why would a company create new anti HIV drug if it is just going to be copied for cheap and they will make no money on it?
THIS I do not agree with.
However, being free market is not a new position for American Presidents. I don't see how what this memo details is in any way worse than the position almost every other recent American President would have taken.
Not new. It is standard practice that negotiations be classified.
It should also be noted that it is standard practice in negotiations to ask for WAY more than you want in hopes of settling in the middle. If you want minimum wage raised to $10 an hour it is standard practice to start negotiations off asking for $16. Many of these propositions (if indeed really) are almost surely far more extreme than what the USA really wants.
|
Let me start with something I read on HuffPost by a user:
Quote:
Of course he's a company man. He wouldn't put on his marching shoes for the Unions in Wisconsin. He let the insurance and pharmaceutical industries write the ACA. He and his administration played key roles in crackingdown on the OWS movement. He filled his cabinet with banksters and wallstreeters, many of who played leading roles in the economic crash. He makes fancy speeches about ending our "perpetual warfare", while pushing for agreements that will keep our troops in country for another decade+, and expanding drone warfare throughout the ME and N. Africa, all to continue feeding the MIC, and ensuring we will have plenty of future enemies to keep the steamball rolling.....,
When corporations are too 'cozy' with government it's called 'fascism'. And you don't have to be liberal or conservative to make it work. You can even be 'center-right', like the vast majority of our establishment leaders from both Parties.......,
|
On your first point, you fail to see that the power to challenge government laws resides, for now, with sovereign NATIONS. The fact that Obama wants these powers extended to corporations means that some of them will have equivalent powers as heads of STATE and COUNTRIES in International Law.
On your second point, I'm surprised someone who is supposedly liberal would be so pro-corporation here. One of the main reasons drugs in our country cost anywhere from 2 to 100x as much as it does in other countries is because of the monopolies of our pharmaceutical companies. And NO, not all of their patents/findings are about unique mixtures. Some of them have patented chemicals and isotopes found naturally occurring without their help. In fact, one of them tried to patent a DNA SEQUENCE. It's like trying to patent electricity or water. It's just stupid in many cases. That's why many countries can churn out the same drugs for a few dollars...because it's not exactly a tough process or particularly mind boggling. What will happen to HIV drugs, cancer drugs, etc?
On your last point of negotiations starting off with strong demands: they are ending the negotiations this week (I believe). And the article has said they are very adamant about their demands. + just because you have to power to demand everything, doesn't mean you should. It takes a certain moral fiber to be fair and negotiate like an adult. We're not talking about buying a house. We're talking about billions of dollars and millions of lives.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/15/2010
Posts: 8,120
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beatfreak
It scares me because the strongest Republican candidate for 2013 right now is Chris Christie, and as a New Jerseyan I can tell you he's done nothing to fix this state so I don't see how he will do any better than Obama for our country. I'm leaning Clinton 2016 so hopefully she runs.
|
What? He's being pushed by the media as the republican moderate but if he's a scam like you're saying I'm worried. Hilary Clinton is the best choice then. I would NEVER want one of those tea party terrorists in the WH, I prefer George Bush became president again.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/11/2010
Posts: 11,240
|
Lol I turned on him after he elected his cabinet. Mostly Wallstreet types. He campaigned on change but to me he's the same old same old.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 3,839
|
for President Obama being the most progressive President of all time.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/5/2009
Posts: 986
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beatz
What? He's being pushed by the media as the republican moderate but if he's a scam like you're saying I'm worried. Hilary Clinton is the best choice then. I would NEVER want one of those tea party terrorists in the WH, I prefer George Bush became president again.
|
Members of the Tea Party will never win a national election. There too extreme for mainstream society.
If the Republicans are smart they'd nominate a young, charismatic individual with a military background.
McCain, Palin, Romney, Ted Cruz...they're all losers. They would never win over America.
Those days are over. The Dems win by default nowadays.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/13/2009
Posts: 25,902
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Beatz
What? He's being pushed by the media as the republican moderate but if he's a scam like you're saying I'm worried. Hilary Clinton is the best choice then. I would NEVER want one of those tea party terrorists in the WH, I prefer George Bush became president again.
|
Yeah, moderate to other Republicans He is not a good choice for liberal leaning people like us. He is a terrible governor who's just riding on his Hurricane Sandy sympathy trail. Clinton is the best choice right now, unless a miracle worker comes along in the next 3 years.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 7,221
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DivaDown
I'm not sure why the younger generation hates Republicans.
I mean, Lincoln was an AMAZING person, politician & president. He so happen to be Republican. I mean, he always ranks high... especially concerning human rights!
Reagan also converted from Democrat to Republican, became president & pulled the economy out of the dumper. He was another amazing person, politician & president who survived an assassination attempt in my lifetime.
I mean, guys, don't stereotype Republicans... or anyone for that matter!
|
Reagan increased the national debt substantially. He put a bandage on a leaking fire hydrant. Bill Clinton cleaned up the mess and gave us a financial SURPLUS.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Musicjunky318
If he didn't have experience the first term he's not going to have experience the second term. Its that simple. On the job training doesn't fly when it comes to the presidency. The only reason why he's still there is because the Republicans are a joke.
|
touche I suppose. Though I think even inexperience can't explain some of the plain stupid things he's done. Starting with letting the insurance companies write the ACA and not gunning for a single-payer system while he had an unstoppable majority.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/6/2012
Posts: 29,767
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
Let me start with something I read on HuffPost by a user:
On your first point, you fail to see that the power to challenge government laws resides, for now, with sovereign NATIONS. The fact that Obama wants these powers extended to corporations means that some of them will have equivalent powers as heads of STATE and COUNTRIES in International Law.
On your second point, I'm surprised someone who is supposedly liberal would be so pro-corporation here. One of the main reasons drugs in our country cost anywhere from 2 to 100x as much as it does in other countries is because of the monopolies of our pharmaceutical companies. And NO, not all of their patents/findings are about unique mixtures. Some of them have patented chemicals and isotopes found naturally occurring without their help. It's like trying to patent electricity or water. It's just stupid in many cases. That's why many countries can churn out the same drugs for a few dollars...because it's not exactly a tough process or particularly mind boggling. What will happen to HIV drugs, cancer drugs, etc?
On your last point of negotiations starting off with strong demands: they are ending the negotiations this week (I believe). And the article has said they are very adamant about their demands. + just because you have to power to demand everything, doesn't mean you should. It takes a certain moral fiber to be fair and negotiate like an adult. We're not talking about buying a house. We're talking about billions of dollars and millions of lives.
|
(Numbering just to keep my thoughts organized)
1. Doesn't change my point though. If a corporation has an issue with a law it seems like an inefficient mess for them to have to go through their government to do so.
2. Unfortunately that is the reality. Obviously a balance must be reached, but developing drugs MUST remain profitable. Even as a liberal I know that. It is all good that allowing people to steal one another's plans makes drugs cheaper..... but then you have to consider the future advancements that could fail to happen if new development stops.
Your post specifically excludes any info on how damn expensive research is. Sure, the final result may be cheap to make, but they still have to make the money that they spent back. If it was really as easy to develop these drugs as you seem to imply it is then why are they other companies not developing it themselves?
3. The United States does have the superior bargaining position. This is true. We can complain about the unfairness of it all, but our elected officials are voted into office to protect their constituents.
I would love to see a truly international community where everyone has an equal say. There is no way the USA (or the EU, or Russia, or China) would ever agree to it though.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2012
Posts: 18,398
|
R-Money wouldn't be any better though. Both are bad.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 12,079
|
Obama is just not presidential material. He's just as bad as Nixon, Lincoln, Hoover, Clinton, Gore Bush Sr, Fitz and Bush Jr.
|
|
|
|
|