Obama : "I've Been Called Worse On The Basketball Court"

Titular comment is at the 6 minute mark.
honkeytonk73says...

You can be a great speaker, but the US can still elect the 'guy you can have a beer with'. Don't hold your breath. Don't take anything for granted. Don't make assumptions that Obama will win. Every step of the way needs to be fought for. A little complacency, and we'll have McSame in office, and another 4 years of $10billion/mo in Iraq, increasing national debt, further international animosity, and most likely a war/conflict with Iran and or Russia.

If you have any male children near 18 years of age. Watch out for the draft. Another major conflict and it will have to be instated.

bamdrewsays...

"If they want to work the refs, they are free to do so..." (@3:15)

... a good way to describe the 'blame-the-media' Republican talking point.


Jeez, I just watched this again and got a lot more out of it... this Obama character is very smart.

imstellar28says...

He responds eloquently and he seems thoughtful, but his idea of what kind of change we need is just dead wrong. It is not change to offer us more government programs--we have been receiving more government programs every year for the last century.

americans don't need government run healthcare, energy, education assistance, or job training--we need freedom. with freedom, we will have all this and more.

moonsammysays...

>> ^imstellar28:
americans don't need government run healthcare, energy, education assistance, or job training--we need freedom. with freedom, we will have all this and more.


What, automatically? I don't particularly care if my healthcare is government or privately operated - I just want it to suck less. If a federally or state-run health care system functioned more efficiently and/or cost me less, I'd cheer it's inception. The idea of market-based solutions for this issue is nice, but I've not been wowed by the results thus far. If nothing else, I don't want to have to worry about pre-existing conditions should I need (or want) to change jobs.

As for energy, education, and job training - see healthcare: I want improvement, and I don't care who implements it as long as it works decently. At least with state-run programs you don't have bajillionaire executives running things purely for personal profit. Still have to watch out for nepotism and mismanagement, but the private market doesn't lessen those risks substantially.

imstellar28says...

>> ^moonsammy:
>> ^imstellar28:
americans don't need government run healthcare, energy, education assistance, or job training--we need freedom. with freedom, we will have all this and more.

What, automatically? I don't particularly care if my healthcare is government or privately operated - I just want it to suck less. If a federally or state-run health care system functioned more efficiently and/or cost me less, I'd cheer it's inception. The idea of market-based solutions for this issue is nice, but I've not been wowed by the results thus far. If nothing else, I don't want to have to worry about pre-existing conditions should I need (or want) to change jobs.
As for energy, education, and job training - see healthcare: I want improvement, and I don't care who implements it as long as it works decently. At least with state-run programs you don't have bajillionaire executives running things purely for personal profit. Still have to watch out for nepotism and mismanagement, but the private market doesn't lessen those risks substantially.


can we agree that the only way to increase the standard of living (and thus have better healthcare, education, etc.) is to increase wealth, and the only way to increase wealth is to increase production?

few things are better at increasing production than an individual free to work hard and have his hard work rewarded with profit and his bad decisions punished by financial loss. if you could get paid the same salary while working less, wouldn't you? essentially thats what you get when you have state run programs.

when you take money from one person, and give it to another you aren't increasing production or the generation of wealth, in fact in most cases you will actually be decreasing production--and thus over the long run reducing the standard of living of everyone involved.

Peroxidesays...

>> ^honkeytonk73:
You can be a great speaker, but the US can still elect the 'guy you can have a beer with'. Don't hold your breath. Don't take anything for granted. Don't make assumptions that Obama will win. Every step of the way needs to be fought for. A little complacency, and we'll have McSame in office, and another 4 years of $10billion/mo in Iraq, increasing national debt, further international animosity, and most likely a war/conflict with Iran and or Russia.
If you have any male children near 18 years of age. Watch out for the draft. Another major conflict and it will have to be instated.


dont forget man, male children, and female too! furthermore not just children but brothers, sisters, cousins, friends... etc.

Peroxidesays...

>> ^imstellar28:
He responds eloquently and he seems thoughtful, but his idea of what kind of change we need is just dead wrong. It is not change to offer us more government programs--we have been receiving more government programs every year for the last century.
americans don't need government run healthcare, energy, education assistance, or job training--we need freedom. with freedom, we will have all this and more.


What are you talking about! Watch "sicko," take a poli-sci class at your local college, read a book on social programs! Freedom is just a word, social programs are the venue from which freedom is delivered! Strong social capital is true freedom!

Of course, I am implying that the social programs are instituted properly and run by an efficient bureaucracy for a problem that prevails for the citizens.

But man! Don't be blinded by whitewashing words like Freedom, if you don't understand the philosophical ramifications of Freedom then do you even know what you truly want?

(P.S. please excuse the double post, im only human you know.)

imstellar28says...

>> ^Peroxide:
>> ^imstellar28:
He responds eloquently and he seems thoughtful, but his idea of what kind of change we need is just dead wrong. It is not change to offer us more government programs--we have been receiving more government programs every year for the last century.
americans don't need government run healthcare, energy, education assistance, or job training--we need freedom. with freedom, we will have all this and more.

What are you talking about! Watch "sicko," take a poli-sci class at your local college, read a book on social programs! Freedom is just a word, social programs are the venue from which freedom is delivered! Strong social capital is true freedom!
Of course, I am implying that the social programs are instituted properly and run by an efficient bureaucracy for a problem that prevails for the citizens.
But man! Don't be blinded by whitewashing words like Freedom, if you don't understand the philosophical ramifications of Freedom then do you even know what you truly want?
(P.S. please excuse the double post, im only human you know.)


can you point me to some books which flesh out your viewpoint? because i don't agree with a single thing in this post and id like to know the details of where your getting these ideas from.

MINKsays...

the doctor who fixed my collapsed lung was amazing, working 3 jobs in state hospitals in Lithuania for basically no money. He could earn a million times more if he worked in the private sector or moved to a different country. I asked him why he worked for the state. He said his job is to help his people.

Crazy deluded communist contributing to the destruction of the economy?

wazantsays...

>> ^imstellar28:
... americans don't need government run healthcare, energy, education assistance, or job training--we need freedom. with freedom, we will have all this and more.


^imstellar28:
... can we agree that the only way to increase the standard of living (and thus have better healthcare, education, etc.) is to increase wealth, and the only way to increase wealth is to increase production?

few things are better at increasing production than an individual free to work hard and have his hard work rewarded with profit and his bad decisions punished by financial loss. if you could get paid the same salary while working less, wouldn't you? essentially thats what you get when you have state run programs.

when you take money from one person, and give it to another you aren't increasing production or the generation of wealth, in fact in most cases you will actually be decreasing production--and thus over the long run reducing the standard of living of everyone involved.


What do you mean by freedom? In what way are you being oppressed right now? I suppose you mean that taxes are oppressing you now and freedom is what you get when you pay no taxes.

You could find out right now what you'd get if you payed no taxes. Do the math, add that to your take home pay and then look at somebody who already has that take-home pay now. There is a good chance that that person is your boss. Is she more free than you? Is her quality of life better than yours in any important way? Is she less in debt? Does she fight with her spouse less often or less bitterly? Does she enjoy better health care protection? Is she any less beholden to her employer to maintain even that level of security? Does she get better sex? And for that matter, is anything more being produced? You're job is still the same so you aren't any more productive. Where does the extra productivity come from? In fact, you claim that you--and in your opinion, everybody--would work less right now if they could do so for the same pay. If that were true, then eliminating income taxes would suddenly motivate everyone to cut down their working hours to match their previous income levels. That would decrease production, but does improve freedom except that you'll need that extra money to buy things that used to be provided by public services.

But that doesn't even matter because no, we cannot agree that the "only way to ... improve health care, education etc. ... is to increase production". That is begging the question and I do not concede. It is a matter of priorities whether or not those or other aspects of society are improved or not and for whom. We, as a society, could improve any of those things right now if we wanted to--there are plenty of resources to do so--but we do not.

imstellar28says...

^wazant:
>>What do you mean by freedom? In what way are you being oppressed right now? I suppose you mean that taxes are oppressing you now and freedom is what you get when you pay no taxes.


freedom: the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. yes taxes are a form of oppression. how can you possibly argue otherwise?

i can sit here and try to beat this idea into your head for hours, but what would really be easier would be for you to research it yourself. why don't you go read some books about both sides of the argument: socialism, free market capitalism, altruism, and objectivism and then decide for yourself? maybe you have already done this, but from your post, i can't imagine this is true. there is nothing more fatal to ignorance than reading books that contradict your viewpoint.

but for the sake of argument lets ignore taxes, lets take an abbreviated look at how "free" i am:

1. you are not free to choose what you put in or on your own body: unless it is an FDA approved food or drug--even if they are legal and beneficial abroad,
2. you are not free to buy an automobile without seatbelts, or in many states, choose whether you wear a seat belt or a helmet on a motorcycle.
3. you are not free to enter any occupation, engage in any business enterprise, or buy or sell from anyone else: example being you cannot offer your services as a lawyer, physician, dentist, plumber, barber, or mortician without obtaining a permit from a governmental official.
4. you are not free to work over-time at terms mutually agreeable to you and your employer, unless the terms conform to rules and regulations laid down by a government official. nor are you free to work at a price both you and your employer find reasonable, unless this price conforms with federal minimum wage law.
5. you are not free to set up a bank, go into the taxicab business, or the business of selling electricity or telephone service, or running a railroad, busline, or airline, without first receiving permission from a government official.
6. you are not free to fish, hunt, or otherwise obtain food for your survival without a permit from a governmental official.
7. you are not free to drive your car or fly your plane, without a license from a government official.
8. you are not free to even be born without governmental involvement as you must obtain a social security number and birth certificate in order to sustain yourself with employment in the united states
9. you are not free to engage in sex in positions and/or configurations you deem appropriate, nor are you free to marry someone who is of the gender you choose.

the size of this list is only limited by the time one has to type out examples. you can argue for/against the merit of any of these restrictions, but you cannot argue that they are not restrictions. there are precious few things you can do without the permission of the government.

Memoraresays...

>>can we agree that the only way to increase the standard of living is to increase wealth

You're being sarcastic right. No one still seriously believes that do they???. Good lord.

Greed is Good. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

imstellar28says...

>> ^Memorare:
>>can we agree that the only way to increase the standard of living is to increase wealth
You're being sarcastic right. No one still seriously believes that do they???. Good lord.
Greed is Good. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.


no i'm not being sarcastic. a 10 person society produces $1000 of income between them. no matter how you distribute it, the average standard of living is $100 per person. if however, you increase productive output, and the net income increases to $2000, the average standard of living has doubled.

your argument revolves around a misunderstanding of the inequality of distribution. tell me, in the absence of market controls, if one person had $910 of the income, and the other 9 had only $10 each--how is the wealthy man producing his income--who is he hiring in his factories? who is buying his products? who is determining the market price of his products? how can he increase his wealth (i.e. increased supply/reduced demand) without either increasing the wages of his workers, or decreasing the cost of the products they buy?

why don't you read about free market economics before you criticize it?

NetRunnersays...

>> ^imstellar28:
i can sit here and try to beat this idea into your head for hours, but what would really be easier would be for you to research it yourself. why don't you go read some books about both sides of the argument: socialism, free market capitalism, altruism, and objectivism and then decide for yourself? maybe you have already done this, but from your post, i can't imagine this is true. there is nothing more fatal to ignorance than reading books that contradict your viewpoint.



>> ^imstellar28:
why don't you read about free market economics before you criticize it?


Telling people "you're too stupid to argue with me, go read a book" is neither a good way to win a debate, nor a good way to encourage people to adopt your viewpoint.

I've been guilty of that myself, but I usually try to save the insults for when I've written off the possibility of a conversion.

Numbnut.

imstellar28says...

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^imstellar28:
i can sit here and try to beat this idea into your head for hours, but what would really be easier would be for you to research it yourself. why don't you go read some books about both sides of the argument: socialism, free market capitalism, altruism, and objectivism and then decide for yourself? maybe you have already done this, but from your post, i can't imagine this is true. there is nothing more fatal to ignorance than reading books that contradict your viewpoint.


>> ^imstellar28:
why don't you read about free market economics before you criticize it?

Telling people "you're too stupid to argue with me, go read a book" is neither a good way to win a debate, nor a good way to encourage people to adopt your viewpoint.
I've been guilty of that myself, but I usually try to save the insults for when I've written off the possibility of a conversion.
Numbnut.


I never made an attack on Memorare's intelligence--only his level of understanding of the free market. With the current level of scientific knowledge available it is absolutely impossible for an individual to be an expert on every subject--thus nobody should feel ashamed, insulted, or unintelligent because they aren't familiar with, or don't understand every subject imaginable.

That being said, an average book is 300 pages. Even if one could completely grasp the benefits of the free market after only one book--how can I possibly condense 300 pages of material into a single paragraph post? If it takes several books--which is likely--especially since one should consider cricism or opposing viewpoints of the theory--it could take 600, 900, or even several thousand pages of reading to really grasp the subject. An economist in college is reading ~12 books a year, or 36 books from sophomore-senior year--this is 10,800 pages of material!

For all I know Memorare is still in high school--or has a phd in biochemistry--he might not have had any exposure to economics, or even if he did, he might may not have much exposure to free market theory. There is nothing wrong with this--but I do not have the time to sit here and walk someone through 10,000 pages of material on an video commenting site.

Thus, I don't see how you can levy a criticism on me for recommending that someone familiarize themselves with the subject before entering a debate. I am looking for rational, informed debate so that I can expand, and if necessary, adjust, my beliefs. Having to constantly refute uninformed, under-researched, or just plan incorrect statements achieves nothing, and only serves to increase the difficulty of finding quality information.

I'm here commenting on free market theory because I have spent a lot of time researching the subject. I'm not commenting on nuclear engineering, for example, because I am woefully ignorant on that subject. I wouldn't walk into a discussion on nuclear engineering and make wild statements without research--so why is that acceptable on a discussion about free market economics?

MarineGunrocksays...

>> ^imstellar28:
^wazant:
>>What do you mean by freedom? In what way are you being oppressed right now? I suppose you mean that taxes are oppressing you now and freedom is what you get when you pay no taxes.

freedom: the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. yes taxes are a form of oppression. how can you possibly argue otherwise?
i can sit here and try to beat this idea into your head for hours, but what would really be easier would be for you to research it yourself. why don't you go read some books about both sides of the argument: socialism, free market capitalism, altruism, and objectivism and then decide for yourself? maybe you have already done this, but from your post, i can't imagine this is true. there is nothing more fatal to ignorance than reading books that contradict your viewpoint.
but for the sake of argument lets ignore taxes, lets take an abbreviated look at how "free" i am:
1. you are not free to choose what you put in or on your own body: unless it is an FDA approved food or drug--even if they are legal and beneficial abroad,
2. you are not free to buy an automobile without seatbelts, or in many states, choose whether you wear a seat belt or a helmet on a motorcycle.
3. you are not free to enter any occupation, engage in any business enterprise, or buy or sell from anyone else: example being you cannot offer your services as a lawyer, physician, dentist, plumber, barber, or mortician without obtaining a permit from a governmental official.
4. you are not free to work over-time at terms mutually agreeable to you and your employer, unless the terms conform to rules and regulations laid down by a government official. nor are you free to work at a price both you and your employer find reasonable, unless this price conforms with federal minimum wage law.
5. you are not free to set up a bank, go into the taxicab business, or the business of selling electricity or telephone service, or running a railroad, busline, or airline, without first receiving permission from a government official.
6. you are not free to fish, hunt, or otherwise obtain food for your survival without a permit from a governmental official.
7. you are not free to drive your car or fly your plane, without a license from a government official.
8. you are not free to even be born without governmental involvement as you must obtain a social security number and birth certificate in order to sustain yourself with employment in the united states
9. you are not free to engage in sex in positions and/or configurations you deem appropriate, nor are you free to marry someone who is of the gender you choose.
the size of this list is only limited by the time one has to type out examples. you can argue for/against the merit of any of these restrictions, but you cannot argue that they are not restrictions. there are precious few things you can do without the permission of the government.


You're REALLY grasping for straws here. Of all the things to say you're not "free" to do, you picked some really shitty ones. No, you can't get a fucking car and drive it around without a license. That way you (or some fucking teenager) doesn't get in a car and kill your mom doing 60 in a residential area.

No, you can't operate a fucking airline without approval from the government because no one wants to board a plane that hasn't been inspected being piloted by a drunk with no training so they can all die a fiery death immediately after take off.

No, you can't be an electrician without a license because no one wants to hire someone to perform an electrical installation to have it short out and cause their house to burn down because the "electrician" didn't know shit about the NEC.

Yes, I can argue all damn day about this absolutely asinine list of yours.

But there are things you most certainly CAN do without permission of the government.

1)Speak your mind freely
2)Worship any god, deity, mythical horned creature, ball of pasta or any other thing you wish
3)Own a rifle
4)Vote your own leaders into office
5)Write whatever you want in any publication you want

to name a few.

You say that Americans aren't free?

Go fucking live in China, then maybe you'll appreciate what it means to be free.

imstellar28says...

^you only hold that opinion because you grew up in a system which held your hand through your whole life. you really can't think of a way for the free market to solve drivers licenses, building codes, or airline security? you are taking all these restrictions for granted because you've never even considered the alternative of actually making decisions for yourself.

Free market alternative to drivers licenses:
Everyone is free to drive. Private companies spring up which teach drivers safety courses--all of whom are in competition with each other, and thus offer affordable prices to the consumer. Such a company may offer different "levels" of courses, each of which is progressively more rigorous and expensive. At the highest levels one could respond to adverse weather conditions on par with a world rally championship driver. There are no laws mandating drivers education--but for economical reasons--insurance agencies do not offer polices, or offer policies at extremely high premiums to drivers who haven't been certified by a private organization. People with higher levels of certification pay less in insurance--as they are the safest drivers. People with or without insurance who cause an accident are still liable in a civil and criminal court. People are free to opt out of uninsured motorists insurance or insurance altogether, but would then run the risk of facing a hit and run driver, or driver with insufficient resources to pay for damages. Accidents will occur, but they are still punishable by state laws--i.e. you can be fined and put in jail for reckless driving, as in the current environment. The result is a system where people are motivated to receive a high quality, real-world driving education--yet can choose the level of risk they are willing to accept, or their budget allows for.

The argument about a teenager getting in a car and killing someone is not a valid criticism of the free market. In a free market killing someone is still illegal...the only difference is now the teenager only gets one charge: manslaughter--instead of manslaughter and "driving without a license". Manslaughter is the charge with the brunt of the both the consequence, and the relevance--not "driving without a license". Why should you care if it was a 15 year old or a 25 year old who kills your mother due to negligence--the result is the same either way.

In addition, how would someone too young to drive obtain a car in the first place? If they can afford a car, they must have a job, and if they have a job which can pay for a car I would argue they are responsible enough to drive a car. Thus, you don't even need age-based regulation--the free market takes care of that too! Whether you are 15 or 55, if you work for a living you understand the value of the dollar, and you will have clear economic motivation to not crash your car, end up in jail, or have to pay stiff fines. If someone's rich daddy buys them a car and they crash it causing the loss of life or property--guess who's rich daddy is going to get sued in civil court!

Free market alternative to building codes:
There are no longer building safety codes--but private organizations (think IEEE for construction) pop up which come together to vote on standards for safe construction. This already happens in many private industries for reasons in addition to safety. Consumers can choose not to live, work, or conduct business in any building them deem unsafe--so businesses. in the name of profit, will be motivated to publicly display the details of construction--perhaps by puting a plague with the engineers name and his level of accreditation/adherence to publicly available safety standards on the store-front, or hiring private inspectors to valid the safety of the structure. A consumer walking into a building could then, for example, see that the building hasn't been inspected in over 3 years or that it was constructed by a firm with a poor safety record--and choose to take their business elsewhere. Thus, engineers, firms, and inspectors are held publicly responsible for the safety of the buildings they construct--and, perhaps more importantly--companies are motivated to select the most esteemed firms around to construct their building. If a business has a poor safety record or a building failure occurs-the results will most likely make it on the local news--the poor press would likely force the company out of business or pressure it to adopt higher quality construction practices. Firms would be motivated to hire engineers who are certified in safe construction, as the public will only want to live, work, or conduct business in buildings which they feel are safe. Companies who place false safety certifications can be charged with fraud and face stiff fines or jail time.

When is that last time you walked into a building and knew what engineering firm built it, what their safety practices where, or the last time it was inspected for health, fire, or safety violations? With a free market, this information could be available to you with absolutely no laws or regulation--only the sheer motivation of profit.

Free market alternative to airlines/taxis/bus drivers:
People make a choice of which airline, taxicab, or bus to use as their form of transportation. And a business which hires drunk drivers, or utilize shoddy planes which crash frequently, is not going to remain in business long. If I wish to fly with an airline which has an unknown safety record, or even some blemishes--maybe I am willing to pay less, or not pay at all. Profit is a strong motivator, and competition between business will motivate them to offer the safest flights, the most convenient bus routes, or the cheapest taxicab fares.

Which regards to flight training--do hospitals hire doctors with no medical training? Do law firms hire lawyers who haven't been to law school? What makes you think a company is going to profit by hiring untrained employees? An airline which hires people off the street to fly planes, and thus results with a bunch of 10:00 news stories about fiery plane crashes isn't going to be in the airline business for very long--just like the hospital who hires employees from the local McDonalds and subsequently botches the next 25 heart transplants in a row isn't going to be in the medical business after the story hits the local newspaper.


The sheer flexibility, elegance, adaptability, beauty, power, and simplicity of the free market is absolutely stupefying.

wazantsays...

imstellar28:

You seem easily confused, so I will type more slowly. When I quote your post and ask what you mean by freedom, I am asking what you mean in the context of your statement, not for a dictionary definition and a list of grievances. You claim that more freedom will improve health care. I mean to ask how, but the only part of your response that is relevant to health care is your complaint that the government acts to restrict the rights of random individuals to do surgery. You are right that I am not an expert in economics, but that does not sound like a better health-care solution.

You imply that I do not think for myself, but I am curious, in what ways do you disagree with Ayn Rand?

MINKsays...

i don't think the free market can work for everything, because humans aren't rational. if you reduce human existence to financial transactions and incentives then you won't get the result you're looking for. there's so much more to life.

btw MG, "go live in china" is such a weak argument. it's like telling a quadraplegic they are lucky not to be brain damaged. it doesn't fix their legs if you tell them that.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More