|
Post by Sir Caelan Munro on Nov 11, 2016 8:41:05 GMT -8
What about Edward VI? I thought Josiah was a pretty great king, particularly compared to the previous and following king's of Judah . Edward VI was so young when he got sick and he never was able to assume full control as a result; his Regency Council pretty much ruled. And the thing I remember most about him was that after being diagnosed as terminal, he wanted the innocent Lady Jane Gray to succeed him, tragically leading to her execution after only 9 days on the throne. Again, corruption. And I was speaking of worldly kings, BTW, so I wasn't including Josiah, and yes by the bibilical account he was an outstanding king. SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by Ayrlego on Nov 11, 2016 14:42:22 GMT -8
Just from an outsiders point of view, why is it you guys seem to all universally dislike President Obama?
Again from a foreigners point of view, he seems to be a decent, charismatic President who, for the last four years at least, has been hamstrung by an uncooperative and obstructionist congress.
To pick one policy as an example, I'll personally admit to never being able to understand how anyone can oppose attempts to provide universal health care, but I'd like to think I have a decent understanding of your political process and why large sections of your country do. I have also been following this campaign reasonably closely. I understand the how large percentages of the population could have negative perceptions of both of the current candidates, but have never been able to understand how many Americans could seemingly so universally dislike the current president....
Anyway just wondering....
|
|
ludzik
Lenfald
Lenfald Freeman
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by ludzik on Nov 11, 2016 15:41:37 GMT -8
He was quick to jump to conclusions - blame cops for incidents where they were doing their jobs, he is responsible for a fiasco called obamacare... Thanks to it, I have about 40 percent less coverage, about 50% higher deductible, and double the rates..... Need I go on?
Oh yeah - he caused more of a rift between races then bridged... Yeah we had issues... Show me a country that doesn't.... Unfortunately for him it was either one or the other... He took away from the good people by blaming them... MLK is turning over in his grave...
|
|
ludzik
Lenfald
Lenfald Freeman
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by ludzik on Nov 11, 2016 16:38:11 GMT -8
I forgot to add his annoying idiotic which ended up with the Ukraine issue blowing up as it did as he was claiming - nothing will happen... I got it handled... we spoke... next thing... crimea...
|
|
|
Post by Sir Caelan Munro on Nov 11, 2016 18:54:25 GMT -8
Ayrlego Let me explain, and I'll try to be as non-partisan as I can... President Obama was given special treatment by the news media and in a way for good reason, first black President and all, but they got used to never being critical of him for any faults, even when he was clearly wrong, or lied to the people. And he did, he promised that Obamacare would allow us to keep our doctor of choice and would lower costs for most people. Neither were true and he knew it at the time; that has been confirmed by numerous credible sources. One thing you stated is actually incorrect; for the first two years of his presidency, President Obama and his Democrats had exclusive control of all forms of government except the Supreme Court (2009 - 2010). The Senate, House and many Governor positions were in the hands of the Democrats, and Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, was one of those primarily to get credit for Obama's rise and victory over Hillary in 2008, and Old Harry did everything Obama asked him to do, including totally shutting Republicans out of all serious discussion for two years. In that time frame, President Obama got Obamacare through the House and Senate without a SINGLE Repulican vote, or any guidance as to how it should be funded or work. When you operate that way, it's a scorched earth policy.... and there is a price to pay for such a path. The mainstream news media, openly admiring the President without realizing they were compromising on their own role of 4th Estate, didn't call him on his lack of compromise, which up to his presidency was pretty much the way things worked in the Senate and House. In general, the American people do not like extremes, either right or left, so they have a tendency to right the ship on the non-Presidential election years. Seeing how he led, the people righted the ship in November 2010 by taking the House away from the Democrats in a huge turnover, so that Republicans could put some brakes to the President's plan without harming his brand. Some of this was indeed due to the Tea Party, but really their numbers were never high enough to be the only source of change. And now comes the payback for that scorched earth policy of Obama's from 2009 to 2010, for now the Republicans started with their obstructionist policies...but keep in mind who started the fight in the first place. Obama promised Hope and Change, and promised unity and healing and transparency. Unfortunately, that is not how he led. Again, compromise is how we Americans have always moved legislation through, but why should only one side be forced to compromise? And it got worse...for when Americans send a message to a President such as the 2010 "shellacking" (his own word for it) it means "Change course". Bill Clinton got the exact same thing in 1994, and he got the message and changed back to centrist policies...but then again the news media helped by getting that message through to Clinton. But after 2010's shellacking, they completely failed in their role, continuing to paint the President with only glowing coverage. So Obama never got the message from the people, and continued to push a far left agenda. He was re-elected by 51% in 2012. Not exactly a landslide, and what's more Democrats now lost the Senate. Again, another message from the people to change course, and again it was ignored. So when the President continued to portray Republicans in the worst light, belittling where he could and never compromising on his far left agenda, why should Republicans cooperate at all? Ever? With the mainstream news media having thrown all their objectivity out the window, everyone was hating on Republicans...at least everyone but the general public. For you see, Republicans continued to pick up state after state, both Governor and state houses of representatives. This doesn't happen unless the general public is not happy with how things are going. They couldn't bring themselves to blame Obama directly, but they voted otherwise, handing huge amounts of local and state power to the opposition party of Republicans. And all the while, the middle class are losing their jobs, having their standard of living come down significantly, being forced to fund higher health care costs when they had been told their premiums would go down, watching the 1% get far richer off of government policies, some of which were authored by the Democrats while they were in power, watching the budget deficit skyrocket to unheard of levels of unsustainable debt interest, and what's worse, this time no one "felt their pain". Last time this happened in this country, President Clinton's famous quote worked wonders with the middle class. "He cares about us." This time, the only things coming from the White House of substance really had to do with social change such as Gay Marriage, gender issues, and lectures about racism. A person may be passionate about these issues, but they don't put bread on the table, help with health care costs, or ensure jobs will be available for you or your children. In short, President Obama lost the middle class to the Republican Party...and these are just the domestic issues. Think about the messes in Ukraine, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and our poor relationships with Russia, China and the Phillipines. And for the first time in over 60 years we now have a damaged relationship with Isreal. Think about that for a moment...the Republicans had little to do with any of this; Foreign policy is set by the President. President Obama was magic. People love his oratory and his charm. But like magic, none of it has turned out to be real, at least for a huge number of Americans. The news media wants everyone to think it is racism, but really it's about his leadership, ideology, lack of willingness to compromise with the opposition, and some bad events on the world stage. Of course, others will say I'm wrong, and that's fine; many people still love President Obama very much. But there are reasons for what just happened, and like it or not, he has presided over a complete power-turn over from his party to the opposition. These things don't happen by accident, and one of the qualities of a great leader is that they are responsible for keeping their brand in power when they leave. Having lost the Presidency, the Senate, the House, most Governorships and state houses, you can't blame all of this simply on racism, the Tea Party, the news media, etc. Some of this disaster must fall on Obama's shoulders.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Caedric Moore on Nov 11, 2016 20:37:06 GMT -8
Some blame may be directed at Obama, as he passed more executive orders than most if not all presidents before him, but to claim all opposition to him was justified or done in retaliation to poor policies is untrue. I have family that are INCREDIBLY conservative republican and listen almost non-stop to their media i.e. FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, and other objectively biased sources. From the day Barack Obama began campaigning for the primary his name was met with derision; from his inauguration onward I heard nothing but disrespect (from those same people who demanded it from the public of former president Bush for the previous eight years) and a blatant refusal to work with the president on anything to the point of even making a concerted effort to block or filibuster anything and everything he attempted to do solely on the grounds of a dislike for the man and his party, to a much lesser extent. I can vouch for President Obama having been the best I've seen in the last three decades. In his two terms as president, he brought the country out of a devastating unemployment epidemic, revived the American auto industry, brought the average price of fuel down from over $5.00/gallon to around $2.15/gallon, preserved more land for national parks than any president since Theodore Roosevelt, improved our ties, relationship, and image with many foreign nations, worked to bring our country out of multiple wars, fought to end our reliance on fossil fuels, instituted the Affordable Health Care Act* bringing health care to thousands who before couldn't afford it or were refused for pre-existing conditions, and made incredible advances in our society's acceptance and tolerance of minorities, immigrants, and the LGBT community. To claim his legacy is anything but a great one is to do the man a huge injustice. That said, his presidency wasn't perfect and he didn't fight for a lot of important events; right now, the DAPL (Dakota Access Pipeline) is a massive encroachment on our native people's land - peaceful protesters are being shot with rubber bullets, pepper-sprayed, and unlawfully incarcerated - yet no television media outlet will cover it and our president turns a deaf ear to the cries of thousands. Long story short, there is good and bad to be said of Barack Obama. *The Affordable Care Act a.k.a. "Obamacare" had good intentions. The blame of it's failure lies not with the president or even those who opposed the act but with the insurance companies themselves, many of which chose to drop existing programs and hike up prices across the board. Pharmaceutical companies are likewise to blame, as many of them egregiously hiked up prices on many life-saving medications. What happened this election season wasn't a cut and paste "race" story; nor was it one solely of hatred. It was of fear. The media made monsters out of both candidates (one more deserving than the other, but that's neither here nor there) and the public voted in most part for who they felt was the "lesser of two evils". Which candidate that phrase described meant different things to different people for many different reasons. The biggest problem with this years election, however, is one that has plagued former elections as well: the Electoral College system. It's archaic and downright unfair as it trumps and overturns the popular vote, rendering the voice of the people unheard and useless - it tells us we don't count; that we don't matter. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a margin of over 200,000 individual votes. More than 200,000 people were told that their decisions didn't matter because of where they live and where others live, due to a system created in the 18th century. Not to mention, the system itself is further rigged by created unfair districts in what is known as "gerrymandering". Rant over I'm glad we here in this community can have a peaceful discussion.
|
|
josdu
Outlaws
Marooned on the Island of Lost Souls
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by josdu on Nov 12, 2016 4:01:48 GMT -8
Btw, just figured I'd mention that the media is not a very reliable source of information on politics, so if that's how you've been 'watching', you probably have only heard one side of the story. Sir Ceadric: perhaps he ended some wars... but he started some too, probably enough to even that out nicely. Health Care had good intentions? Well, they should be smarter about it. Government has no business with health care and can never make it work, I believe. It is the duty of the church to help the sick (if they are unable to help themselves), not the government.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Caelan Munro on Nov 12, 2016 6:33:29 GMT -8
Ronin, I was answering David's question as to why a lot of people don't like him, not why he should be liked. David is an Aussie, and reallly the rest of the world's news coverage is even more biased than ours is...I know, I've lived in both Germany and Turkey and have been all over the world, both as a vacationing traveller and while in the military. So my list above does look a little one-sided, but that was because I was explaining to David what his news media doesn't cover... That said, here are a few thoughts on your thoughts.... -- to claim all opposition to him was justified or done in retaliation to poor policies is untrue. -- I didn't, actually. A lot of it was bias.-- FoxNews - The opposite of MSNBC, ABC, CBS and yes even CNN's biased reporting. Fox is just filling a niche, actually. Biases either way.-- he brought the country out of a devastating unemployment epidemic - How much of this credit goes to him is debatable, as is the level of real recovery, but again there's too much biased reporting on his contribution to know definitively-- revived the American auto industry - He propped it up using tax-payer dollars, a massive bill which will eventually come due in an ugly way, so yes but at a great cost-- brought the average price of fuel down from over $5.00/gallon to around $2.15/gallon - I have to totally call you out on this one. To give him credit here is incredibly disingenuous; it was the discovery of massive amounts of oil in shale and the subsequent fracking process that has given the US more oil supply than ever before and created allmost 1 million new jobs -- the law of supply and demand = the price came down. If anything he opposed the process due to environmental concerns, and however legitimate this opposition, you cannot give him credit for the fruits of something he actively opposed!-- preserved more land for national parks than any president since Theodore Roosevelt, improved our ties, relationship, and image with many foreign nations - 100% true and one of his best accomplishments outside social issues-- worked to bring our country out of multiple wars -- Uhh, which ones? We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes? In fact, our pulling out under his direction left a vacuum that ISIS filled...and now we are back in again, only in smaller numbers but still at great cost, and look at the butchery caused by our lack of presence! I too want the US completely out of the Middle East, but George W. Bush stupidly broke it and now we keep having to go back in to fix so many problems. Here I have no problems blaming Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld for the entire disaster, but Obama ended no wars and was partially responsible for both Libya and Syria. Globalists start wars, and both Bush and Obama are globalists.-- fought to end our reliance on fossil fuels - Another noble effort, but his investments in Solyndra and others have been disastrous financiallly for the tax payer-- instituted the Affordable Health Care Act* bringing health care to thousands who before couldn't afford it or were refused for pre-existing conditions -- Yes and many have benefitted amongst the poor. But someone had to pay for it, and the middle-middle and upper-middle class didn't qualify for government subsidies and are getting screwed, and this contributed to the outcome of this election more than a little. "Do no harm" is a medical phrase which Obamacare did not follow.-- Made incredible advances in our society's acceptance and tolerance of minorities, immigrants, and the LGBT community. -- He gets full credit for this, but at the same time the majority of religious communities of America were left a little bit marginalized by the process. This too contributed to people voting for Republicans en masse. Again, not compromising has a cost.-- good and bad to be said of Barack Obama. - Exactly! I was explaining to David why some people only see the bad.-- *The Affordable Care Act a.k.a. "Obamacare" had good intentions. The blame of it's failure lies not with the president or even those who opposed the act but with the insurance companies themselves...and...Pharmaceutical companies - They are not charities Ronin. To think of them as anything but a business, out for profit just like Microsoft, Starbucks, Facebook and the like is a mistake. Apple sends most of their work to China where people slave for 12 hours in sweatshops so that you and I can have an amazing iPhone at a fraction of the cost...utterly morally reprehensible on multiple levels, but whoever insisted life must be fair is a fool or a manipulator, or both. Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.... - the Electoral College system. It's archaic and downright unfair as it trumps and overturns the popular vote -- Be careful what you wish for. Our Founding Fathers put the Electoral College in to keep one or two states' concerns from swallowing up the rest of the country. One thought, that without the Electoral College, perhaps slavery would have been legal in all the states prior to the Civil War, if the Southern States had just counted all African Americans as full voting populace? It is to avoid the "tyranny of the majority". THat said, we have an Amendment process for the US Constitution, and I for one think an Amendment to end both the Electoral College and at the same time institute term limits for Congress is a good idea. Your vote would mean more with such an Amendment.I agree that an amiable conversation is so much better than the horrible unbalanced ranting going on in so many places on the internet now. Good chatting with you Ronin. Sav
|
|
|
Post by Sir Caedric Moore on Nov 12, 2016 9:58:02 GMT -8
Ronin, I was answering David's question as to why a lot of people don't like him, not why he should be liked. the military. So my list above does look a little one-sided, but that was because I was explaining to David what his news media doesn't cover. - Completely understood; I was just covering the bases, more than anything - nothing was directed at anyone in particular and I didn't mean to imply a belief that you yourself were biased. I like this format for discussing topics, so I'll follow suit for consistency's sake.
-- Fox is just filling a niche, actually. Biases either way. - True - all television media outlets are slanted one way or the other - but FoxNews has a tendency bordering on compunction to report false news and carry false narratives, so they receive most of my ire. -- How much of this credit goes to him is debatable - Just so - as is the level of real recovery. - Eh, not so much. I live in Indiana and during and after the Bush administration, job availability was at an all-time low. I myself spent months unemployed, spending every day talking to foremen and private contractors and applying at EVERY position available and was still met with "no". Even fast food jobs weren't available. I got lucky enough to make it through by getting jobs from private contractors until - under Obama's presidency - the unemployment level dropped drastically. Now, everywhere is hiring. -- American auto industry - He propped it up using tax-payer dollars - Every government action uses tax-payers' dollars. If even a fraction was taken from our military spending, it could easily be allocated to any number of worthy applications. A government bailout of an industry that breathes life into the U.S. is also a lot more respectable than a bailout of the banks *cough BUSH!! cough* -- Fuel prices - To give him credit here is incredibly disingenuous. - It was under his presidency, but you do have a point: the credit can't be given directly to him. That said, I completely agree with his environmental concerns. We have no business continuing our reliance on fossil fuels when unlimited green energy has been at our fingertips for decades. -- We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes? - Yes, but not in full force insurgency; only in a position of overwatch. I, too, want the country out of the Middle East, but as the president has noted, it takes time to establish a change of power. I fear with the devastation the region has been left in, there won't be any resolution for some time. - In fact, our pulling out under his direction left a vacuum that ISIS filled - We unknowingly created Isis by supplying weapons to "freedom fighters", the same as we did for the Taliban. Lessening our involvement created a problem, I agree. - I have no problems blaming Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld for the entire disaster, but Obama ended no wars and was partially responsible for both Libya and Syria. Globalists start wars, and both Bush and Obama are globalists. - Also true. My point was that he worked to bring us out and that endeavor in itself is admirable. If anything, however, it's our policies on dealing with foreign nations and who we ally ourselves with that got us involved in Libya and Syria. -- Many have benefited among the poor. But someone had to pay for it, and the middle-middle and upper-middle class didn't qualify for government subsidies and are getting screwed. - If a program has flaws, you work to fix them; standing stalwart in the way of progress aids no one. Had our government worked together to revise the Act and put pressure on or written legislation against the insurance companies, I have no doubt the program would have benefited all. The problem with private enterprise is that it benefits none save the owner(s) of said business; they decide how they operate and what they charge, regardless of value or necessity. -- The majority of religious communities of America were left a little bit marginalized by the process. - How so? In no way were religious people disenfranchised or put upon by raising tolerance and acceptance of others. Beliefs are fine and dandy, but when one uses their beliefs to justify prejudice or refusal of service to others it loses the very moral values it intends to uphold. Only when people of faith and those without can fully accept one another will this issue be rectified. -- They are not charities Ronin. To think of them as anything but a business, out for profit, is a mistake. - Capital is fine, when it is handled responsibly. Our business practices do nothing to stop CEO's from putting millions of dollars directly into their pockets without allocating any of it back to the consumer. The cost passed on to the consumer ought to be relatively equal to the cost of the supplier; yes, some profit margin must be had for the venture to be successful, but not to the extent of disenfranchising others while rendering one's self disgustingly wealthy. A solution that would benefit the people would be to offer universal health care and while the ACA has its flaws, it is still a step in the right direction. - Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others. - There are good things to be said of socialism, if applied in a democratic fashion. -- Our Founding Fathers put the Electoral College in to keep one or two states' concerns from swallowing up the rest of the country. - And at the time, it was beneficial. In this day and age, however, it is outdated. States aren't people; the idea that every citizen in a state thinks the same and votes unanimously is a ridiculous one that needs to be forgotten. Every person - regardless of where they live - has differing opinions and values. Each person's vote ought to count equally and should be the ONLY thing that decides elections. A country "by the people, for the people" ought to follow that creed. - That said, we have an Amendment process for the US Constitution, and I for one think an Amendment to end both the Electoral College and at the same time institute term limits for Congress is a good idea. - Agreed
|
|
|
Post by Ayrlego on Nov 12, 2016 12:44:40 GMT -8
Thanks for your insights everyone, it's a fascinating time to follow your politics, and I wish you all the best in what's to come. Regarding the media, I mostly watch American media for this stuff - the Australian media IMO doesn't have/want to have an in depth understanding and simply re-hashes popular opinion and hysteria (example: the headline on a national major paper the day after the election was W-T-F?) (probably to distract from some of our own Governments disgraceful policies...) However I admit that alot of the American programing I watch is quite biased. I watched all the debates on youtube, even (most) of the vice presidential one and there are one or two news/political commentary shows I watch regularly every week. Government has no business with health care and can never make it work, I believe. It is the duty of the church to help the sick (if they are unable to help themselves), not the government. Sorry Josdu, but I strongly believe this is not true. Plenty of countries around the world have great public health care systems that work. For example my wife had both our children in though the excellent public system here in Canberra (and we both have private health insurance). Our system is far from perfect - but it works. Whilst the church can do great work in this area, I strongly believe it should not be the only avenue that the people who can't afford health care can take - there are some genuine conflicts of interest when a church also runs a hospital/medical care facilities - look at the Catholic Hospital system in the US for an example of this. Private health insurance also has an important place, but again IMO should not be the sole provider. Health should absolutely not be a solely 'For Profit' industry. To help pay for the system - well I don't have all the answers!!! In Australia we get a tax break for being privately insured (insurance is not provided by employers either), people above a certain income, without private health insurance pay an additional levy on their income tax. Anyway, just my thoughts!
|
|
josdu
Outlaws
Marooned on the Island of Lost Souls
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by josdu on Nov 12, 2016 13:12:13 GMT -8
No need to apologize for disagreeing. As for the fact, well, I'm not too well versed in all this, and hadn't heard of that: but as you might have guess, I meant work well. Of course, I shain't judge your health care. I can only say that I doubt it works well for everyone as much as it does for you: prove me wrong and I'll be willing to admit it, 'cause I'm just guessing. As for the rest, I try to stay out of politics in general as I'm confusing and haven't studied enough to back my opinions . To be plain, my idea is that government health care is socialism, and that socialism won't work (well - nor even the way it's 'supposed' to).
|
|
AK_Brickster
Innkeeper
Scouting the Lenfel Border
Posts: 3,272
|
Post by AK_Brickster on Nov 14, 2016 10:40:40 GMT -8
I don't think that the Church is too well-suited to provide healthcare, but for general humanitarian things like food/clothing/shelter, it would be nice to be able to donate directly to the cause instead of having government-controlled welfare, where I'm sure many cents of each dollar are wasted and never make it to the people they are supposed to be helping.
And yes, I did vote. I voted for Johnson, mostly to support the Libertarian Party, despite him not being my favorite option from their ranks.
|
|
josdu
Outlaws
Marooned on the Island of Lost Souls
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by josdu on Nov 14, 2016 16:29:16 GMT -8
And yes, I did vote. I voted for Johnson, mostly to support the Libertarian Party, despite him not being my favorite option from their ranks. Ah, probably the same as I would have done. If people would only recognize their own power a libertarian might get elected... or perhaps I should say might get the most real votes - I sometime thinks it takes more then that to get elected though.
|
|
AK_Brickster
Innkeeper
Scouting the Lenfel Border
Posts: 3,272
|
Post by AK_Brickster on Nov 14, 2016 16:59:50 GMT -8
If people had to vote based on the candidate's stance on the issues instead of just picking the person with the (R) or (D) next to their name, then yes, I think a third-party candidate could very easily get elected. Would love to see a blind vote sometime, like the old "Dating Game", haha! "Candidate #2, what's your opinion on foreign conflict involvement?"
|
|
lilcurt
Outlaws
Back Home, Somewhere along the Lenfeld, Garheim Border Preparing for winter :)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by lilcurt on Nov 14, 2016 20:48:49 GMT -8
Ak I support your idea of a dating game inspired election!
|
|