Obama is change you can believe in, but what good is belief? People wanted somebody so different than Bush, they elected someone who spouted poetic rhetoric, forgetting all the while that he's a politician like the rest of them. Joe Wilson called Obama a liar, but who is he to judge? They're all liars.

Fuck America, and fuck Americans who thought Obama would bring change to this corporate welfare state.

I am finding it interesting that the progressive reforms many were expecting towards healthcare, finance regulations, foreign policy weren't going to come. When any person bases their election on a narrow minded propaganda message like "yes we can", and you believe it, then their is a clear problem of the masses not able to understand and vote for their best interests. I honesty never thought Obama was genuinely working towards universal healthcare, or was ever thinking of being an honest broker in the middle east, or putting any substantive regulations on the financial industry. The direction can be seen in the money that's been taken and the people that are given key jobs. I wish the progressive movement would get over Obama, sideline him and recognize him as an obstacle, and move on to fighting for real change.

There is no real change. From any politician. Ever. Only tyrants change history.

>> ^geo321:
I am finding it interesting that the progressive reforms many were expecting towards healthcare, finance regulations, foreign policy weren't going to come. When any person bases their election on a narrow minded propaganda message like "yes we can", and you believe it, then their is a clear problem of the masses not able to understand and vote for their best interests. I honesty never thought Obama was genuinely working towards universal healthcare, or was ever thinking of being an honest broker in the middle east, or putting any substantive regulations on the financial industry. The direction can be seen in the money that's been taken and the people that are given key jobs. I wish the progressive movement would get over Obama, sideline him and recognize him as an obstacle, and move on to fighting for real change.

^ thinker247
"There is no real change. From any politician. Ever. Only tyrants change history."

That doesn't have to be the norm. Overthrowing tyrants has been a perpetual action of citizens (or people to become citizens) for hundreds of years. The biggest problem today, or obstacle, as I see it now is an enormous amount of propaganda or misinformation on the public.
In the US banning direct money from corporations is a no brainer towards that goal. But the culture of corruption would take a generation to get rid of still after that as it's so ingrained in the US ideologically.

^I meant to say towards elected officials. But also I think there's truth in dumbing down the public indirectly or directly through
#1. reporting international news filtered through a patriotic lens.
#2. reporting on remedial interest stories as if they're urgent breaking news.
#3. people depending, or trusting any media's assertions without question when they assert, "official sources say"... "officials say"..."an official source says"...

So what did people think, that Obama could just step into office and fix everything with the wave of his hand? How much support do you think he would get for a single-payer system? Hell, he mentions a government "option" and people start flipping out about socialism and government takeovers. If he tried to push through a single-payer system then the whole attempted reform would fall flat on its face.


I honestly like Obama better than any other candidate out there. I don't agree with every decision he makes, but I can't see a better alternative. He probably won't stick to every promise he makes, but I'd be far more concerned if we elected conservatives that did follow through on all of their promises.

"How much support do you think he would get for a single-payer system?"
^As of the last poll 65% of the US population wants single payer.

^ The Democrats in congress don't seem convinced, and Obama can't simply bypass them or order them to vote how he wants.

I can already see the commercials and Fox "News" stories about the number of people in the insurance industry losing jobs from the "government takeover" during difficult economic times. The bigger the change, the easier it is to scare people. I genuinely think Ron Paul would try to implement broad changes, but I don't think he would be any more successful in getting the votes for it.

I'd love to see a single-payer system, but unfortunately I think pushing hard for one would fail and would also sabotage the chance of getting anything else through. People want change, but they freak out when it's actually proposed. =\

I hate to say this... and this is a total guestimate, but it seems that at least 10% of the US population are a combination of religious fundamentalist and uneducated, and therefore highly susceptible to absorbing then spewing out any directions from corporate lobbyists and inflammatory talk show hosts without knowing what their slogans or soundbites mean within the context of reality. So why concede to this vocal and irrational minority?

>> ^geo321:
So why concede to this vocal and irrational minority?


In the end it comes down to how many in congress feel safe voting for any given legislation. Even if a particular member agrees with a bill, they're unlikely to vote for it if they think they may lose their seat over it.

The "vocal minority" can make it seem like there is less support for big changes, so lawmakers are less likely to stick their neck out for such issues. The bigger the change, the bigger the political risk. I think Obama recognizes this, but how he responds will have a large impact on how successful his proposals are.

You can certainly fault politicians for caring so much about how people will vote, but for the most part that is the reason that are in office to begin with. I'm hoping that the political changes over the past few years are signaling that people are becoming less conservative in general, in which case we could end up with more support for broad health care change a few years down the road, but only time will tell.

^ Psychologic
I agree with you that it wouldn't be possible to pass a single payer bill now, as the senate would destroy any bill put forward.
However, my speculation is that I don't think Obama wanted a universal healthcare bill to pass in the first place. At least that's what all of his tactics have suggested as well as his closed door deals with the pharmaceutical industry last month.
I'm not out to bash Obama in and of himself, I just notice that his actions are a continuation of a long run series of policies.
for instance the US stopped with praise close to 40 million dollars in aid to Honduras, and at the same time with little press gave over 130 million to the IMF to go towards Honduras. Also while we're having these g20 talks towards re-regulating the finacial markets, which are non binding, the US is still going through, with Timothy Geitner at the helm, with the binding WTO measures to further deregulate the markets. The key measure to that WTO agreement is that the size of the financial institution cannot be descriminated against.
Anyway maybe I'm rambling, I guess my point is that the evidence suggests that the executive branch is fully representing high end financial institutions.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by geo321.

Parts of that were funny, but is anyone else annoyed by Bill Maher's smug little face?

And I don't mean just in this video. I hate his stupid face all of the time.

>> ^thepinky:
Parts of that were funny, but is anyone else annoyed by Bill Maher's smug little face?
And I don't mean just in this video. I hate his stupid face all of the time.


Eloquent.