₦airaland Forum

Omo, I dey go church. Hopefully, I'll have time to be back here to discuss this after.

@davidylan,

those clips are dishonest. What you have are carefully cropped portions of speeches to convey a false point . . . if the public option eventually eliminates private insurance it will be because they either dont offer any better healthcare service for the dollar than the public option.

There is nothing dishonest about the clips.  They are Obama's words. He took time to explain is position after nmapping out a stand. He wants a single payer system and he envisions the system driving out private party from the healthcare industry.

Why keep the private option anyway if it solely exists to make Ed Hanway retire with a $73m parachute?

If his shareholders approve of his pay, what is your own?

err like medicare?

Yep! Such will go bankrupt.

@Ibime,

20 years from now, when social health is up and running successfully alongside Private, we would look back at these Republican naysayers as dinosaurs from another era, the same way the Brits look at those pre-1950 who never had any social healthcare.

What's your definition of success? Medicare and Medicaid are about bankrupt. There is no funds to sustain the system. The govt cannot even sustain the program for a section of the populace and you are asking that they do that for all citizens? That's fool-hardy!

@Davidylan,

Err no perhaps you shld pay more attention to facts than propaganda. No where in that clip is it indicated that he will eliminate private insurance. That is a YOUTUBE clipped artfully cropped to prove a lie.

Are you serious?
did you watch the clips at all? Obama clearly said his plan will get rid of the private insurer in about 5 to 20 years! Were you asleep when he declared he is a proponent of a single payer system that would eventually eliminate the private insurers?

no wonder many big companies are rushing abroad . . . what with retiree benefits, employer health insurance benefits . . . it sure is damn expensive to run a profitable business in this country.

This is a valid point. The cost of doing business is indeed rising in America and the healthcare system is part of the problem. Saying a govt run system is however the solution is a denial of lessons learnt from history.

@Ibime,

Come on mate, who you trying to scare?

Scare? No mate, just giving you some information.

I cant watch the video now, maybe later, but I guess its more propaganda.

Don't you think its prudent to withohold comment till you have watched the video? By the way, its less than 2 minutes long!

@Ibime,

You made a silly suggestion that Privates will close under Obamas scheme. This is scare-mongering, the likes of which Republicans easily fall for.

It will be nice if you understand the position of the person you are defending. Obama's goal is to eliminate the private option leading to a single payer system. Maybe you should watch this 2 minute video chronicling Obama's stand on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk&feature=player_embedded

@JeSoul,

One angry taxpayer said "He took 6 months to pick a dog, but they want to change the entire healthcare system in 3-4 weeks?" - Classic!

Let me share another classic statement with you. It was made by the John Conyers, the Democratic Chairman of the House Judiciary Committe. He said the folowing: "What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" Can you imagine, even the Chairman of the Judiciary Committe requires lawyer[b](s)[/b] to understand the Bill they were planning to force down our throats.

I like Gringich's response to the above statement. Gingrich said something like this: "If the Bill is too complicated to understand, it must be too complicated to implement."

@Negro,

Good point! In retrospect, its a good thing Bush failed in his attempt to throw SSI into speculative market.

I don't agree on your last point based on principles. I believe every man should only eat what he earns. You should enjoy the fruots of your labour. What we have now is insuring our future with our children's sweat. The principle I live by in this instance this: "Parents should lay up for their children". In this case, we have children laying up for their parents. It's not just right on many levels.

@bawomolo,

Why didn't the republicans get rid of medicare and medicaid if they were all against FDR's policies?

First, you may want to know that Medicare and Medicaid were not FDR's entiltlement program.  Those were put inplace by President Lyndon Johnson.

As to FDR? I will quote from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr's book - The Coming of the New Deal: "Those taxes were never a problem of economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll taxes there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."

And as for the intentios of Medicare and Medicaid, please check out what Wilbur Mills told Johnson about the medicare Bill: "I think we've got you something that won't only run on in '66 but we'll run on from here after." http://www.larrydewitt.net/Essays/MedicareDaddy.htm

@JeSoul,

I see you have been drinking the kool-aid without checking the nutrition facts.

You know I was offered that kool-aid as well. However, I decided to check the nutrition facts as you have advised.  Don't expect same from the Association of Pharaoh Brick Builders on Nairaland (APBBN), chaired by no other than his pre-eminent brick-builder, pres-elect.

Here are some of the facts I found out from the kool aid.  It's a reflection of what Obama said to what Obama did.

1.  Obama said he will publish all legislation to the govt's website for five days,  before the President signs it,."  He has broken that promise over and over again.

2. He promised to keep lobbyists out of his administration.  There are at least 15 in his administration.

3. Obama criticised earmarks claiming he will carry out a line item veto to eliminate them.  I'm sure we all know better now.

4.  Same Obama who berated Bush for fear-mongering to achieve a political goal, has adopted the same approach in passing the stimulus package.

5.  Obama hates deficits and called Bush out for doing same.  Yet he voted for the TARP that pushed the deficit under Bush to over $1trillion. Can you imagined he's virtually doubled Bush's deficit with just a few months in office? Doing in months, what Bush did in years!!!

The list goes on and on.  My advise to honorable members of APBBN? If Obama says it, there is a good chance he won't do it.  

@JeSoul,

They already own banks, cars, housing, soon healthcare, next Ibime, Bawo & Morph

I thot this was a done deal already. Isn't it pathetic to see our brothers carrying bricks for Pharaoh? 

No mind dem pretenders jare. Seriously, America cannot be regarded as a free society anymore. The change has been gradual but it appears Obama just put it on steroids. It seems my good ol' Naija is a freer society than the supposedly God's own country.  Someone made the following statement which I can only paraphrase: "Govt handouts may appear free, but they come with a hefty price tag".

@bawomolo,

Obama is no socialist. Trust you haven't seen socialist yet. The likes of hugo chavez and eva morales would laugh at such statement. The US has always ran as a mixed economy so i'm surprised folks are whining about the same tax money that was already wasting away in iraq and afghanistan anyway. Cut defense spending if you are really worried about saving that precious tax money.

Tell me, what has been the differnece between the way Obama has been operating and Chavez and co have done as well? Granted, Obama hasn't called for the constituion to be changed to accomodate a life presidency but his support for a second bill of rights is an open window to his soul.

Obama like FDR believes in the "Second Bill of Rights". This is nothing more than a socialist agenda. Both men believe that the Bill of Rights we have now are "negative" BOR and that Govt should also ensure "positive" BOR. That is socialism, period.

Why should the country cut defense spending? Isn't that the role of govt to fight wars and defend the country? The govts role in my opinion should be very limited. Offering universal healthcare, mortgages, cash for clunkers, etc shouldn't be in the govt's court.

@pres-elect,

I think ignoring you might be the best way to get you to think straight. Your attmept at humour will only be successful to the extent it makes some sense.

@RichyBlack,

Of course you can grow pot in your house!

No you can't. At least not in the State of Minnesota. I don't know about the rest of the nation.

The police need a search warrant from a judge to search your home, and they need to convince the judge that there is probable cause to justify the warrant; that's due process!

That is true. but the bttom line is that if foul play is suspected, you will be arrested even though you are still presumed innocent until a jury of your peers judge you guilty after a trial. So you se, while you are still in your home, you can and will be arrested for suspicion of illegality. Which brings me back to the issue that many have raised in this discussion that the Prof should not have been arested because he was in his house. Is illegality excused in ones house?

That police officer "acted very stupidly"!

Don't think Obama will invite you to the WH for Beer Summit 2 if you persist with this statement.

A white Harvard professor would not have been arrested or harassed.

A belliegerent White Professor would most likely have been arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct too. Let's not cry racism where none exists.

@4Play,

Without injecting race into it, it's a question of consitutional rights as to whether a person should be arrested in his own home for ''disorderly conduct''.

You know, the Prof would have made more sense if he had made this kind of argument. I would easily swallow charges of excessive force at the Police Officer, but racism or racial profiling? That is a stretch.

I think it is pertinent to note that the Prof was not arrested in his house but outside. It may have been still in his compound, but the arrest took place in public view when the Prof persisted in his belligerent behaviour.

As to whether a person can be arrested in his house for disorderly conduct, I think there is a fine line here. I am not a legal expert but aren't people arrested in their homes when they commit a crime? While disorderly conduct is not a crime but a misdemeanour, I find it hard to swallow the notion that you are free to do whatever you want as long as it is done within the confines on your own house. Can you grow Pot in your house and expect not to be arrested? I'll appreciate your thoughts on this.

@Ibime,

if I wanna be naked in my house all day, picking boogers out my nose and standing on my head, whilst telling the police to shove it

All manner of disturbing thoughts come to mind with the scenario you have just painted here.  I wonder what the "it" is you want the Police to shove.  Could it be the Police baton or his masculine member?  With you naked and standing on your head, it appears you want either that baton or the Police masculine member shoved down yor sh*t hole. Eeeew, how disgusting!

@TOH,

He had not reason to "submit" to anyone. he didnt do anything wrong. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Next time the cops stop you in your car or come to your neighborhood to investigate a crime, just start railing at them and behaving disorderly. Maybe then you will realise what the problem is.

skipping over the jungle monkey comment are we?

What has that got to do with the discussion? Was the comment made by Crowley? Wasn't the officer who made the statment reprimanded? What more do you want?

@pres-elect,

For ones you made some sense. Rosa Parks didn't refuse toget up from her sit because of the desire to engage in some civil disobedience.  What I am trying to allude to is very simple.  You may choose to be involved in civil disobedience to the extent you are willing to accept the consequences. The Prof was involved in disorderly conduct and wasn't happy with the consequences.  He only bandied the word racial profiling around to get back at the cop.

Theis situation was brought about by an egoistic elitist who finds it difficult to submit to authority, especially when the authority figure is not of his race.

@TOH,

What Rosa Parks did can be categorised as a civil unrest. Pray tell, was the Prof engaging in some form of civil unrest too, or was he just upset that the Police Officer did not recognise his elitist self?

Stop to think about the irony in this case and Rosa Parks'. The underpriviledged person in both cases were Rosa Parks and Officer Crowley. The Whites felt insulted by Rosa Parks' sitting in the bus. They called in the authorities to put Rosa in her place. Likewise, the Professor was the priviledged one here who threatened the underpriviledged Officer and brought his social status to bear in the matter. The skin colors in both scenario may be reversed, but the social forces acting are the same.

@pres-elect,

NO obama did not handle this well. he lost his cool and i'm sure he regrets. he is trying to make amends. i hope he succeeds

Are you for real? This must be the schizophrenic half of pres-elect. I thot you sadi on the other thread that the arrest was racially motivated. If it was, how could you say Obama erred by calling the Police stupid? U try no be small.

@naliakar,

Well I do and I am no Richy Black. By the way Tayo, what do you understand by racial profiling? And please don't froth in the mouth as you answer. Just be gentle deliberate and insightful for once.

I would have answered you if you asked your question without an insult.  Mind to ask again? And please try to be civil.  I know it is against your nature, but do try.

In any case, you might want to begin by reviewing Jesoul's take on it, which I agree with whole heartedly. Here's what she has to say:

Hmm . . . I do actually support racial profiling to an extent.

So far in our recent history, Black/Asian people don't blow up planes - middle easterners do. The Airport security would be doing exactly right to keep an eye out for middle eastern passengers over the single mom juggling 3 kids and their luggage. It may sound wrong but it is logical.
The same way cops can stop a car full of black thugged out youngins vs an older white couple - which set is more likely to be up to no good?
Racial profiling sucks, especially when you're the one being profiled. But the way I see it, it is a necessary evil.

@Richy,

"Are they white, black or Hispanic?" the dispatcher said.

Only RichyBlack can conclude from the above statement that racism is implied.  The dispatcher just wanted a simple description of the people breaking in. did you notice he/she mentioned 'White' first?  Going by what has been written here so far, one would think the dispatcher could never suspect crime to be commited by any White person.

@Ibime,

The depth of depravity you would sink to to discredit Obama is alarming. . . . I thought this kind of talk about Obamas birth certificate was the preserve of ethnic jingoists. . . . . Mr Tayo-D, oya make we see your own birth certificate. . . . I no even know whether your own visa for Yankee go give you voting right sef

I have said that this birth certificate thing is a non-issue to me.  This is how I see it. If he was indeed born in the US, he deserves to be President. If he was not, he still deserves to be President. How is that? If he could fool and outsmart a whole nation on such a fundamental issue, then he should own that nation, simple.

One way or the other, I am not pertubed.  My opposition to Obama has always been and will always remain on issues and ideology that pertains to governance.  I didn't start this birther question here, but when prompted to give my thoughts, I said exactly what I think. I never shy away from speaking my mind in order to please people.  You guys can continue to keep this issue alive if you want, it's of no consequence to me. But you can't force me or attack me into submission.  That's just plain stupid!

@pres-elect,

and if it were up to tayo D blacks will still be slaves in america now.

And if it were upt to you, Whites will be slaves in America now abi?

anybody here who does not agree that what happened to mr gates would never have happened if the prof were white are living in chronic delusion.

Okay anyone who does not agree with you is delusional. When were you inducted into the elite club? You are alsways right abi even though you have no proof. Obama who jumped to conclusion intially has backtracked. The black cop who was at the scene supports his collague and berated Obama. Same with other Black cops. I believe you saw that video right? So what facts are you alluding to to conclude this was racism? Since when did you take on the God role of knowing and judging motives? You have indeed attained an elevated plain that I have no chance of attaining. I hope you enjoy such Godly status!

@TOH,

If it were up to Powell we'd still be sitting at the back of the bus

After all didnt Rosa Parks end up arguing with authorities. If she "sucked it up" and got up from her seat, how would things be now? Dude is retarded, must be from worshiping his massa all his life.

Na wa o. So Powell too is anti-black? Do you think Bill Cosby too would own slave camps because he bassically shares the same setiments with Powell on this issue?

Pres-elect, are you goint to berate TOH for this statement about Powell or you are only into selective anger when the issue does not favour your preconceptions?

@pres-elect,

You guys are the ones keeping this issue alive. Same brouhaha was made regarding John McCain's birth certificate. The guy produced one. Now that someone raised the issue with Obama's all we've seen is a certificate of live birth and not a real birth certificate. Like I said, this is a non-issue to me, but if you decide to make an issue out of it, you can technically not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii without a legal birth certificate!

By the way, how did this issue get in the mix of our discussions?

@pres-elect,

Good to read tayo saying something good about Powell. The guy has had it rough from republicans since he endorsed an intelligent man for president. And tayo I hope you are not among those who believe Obama was born in Mombasa

Each situation must be judged on its own merit. If Powell makes a right call, it will be acknowledged.  If he makes a wrong one, he will be called out for it.

Where again was Obama born?  I trust you've seen a copy of his birth certificate and not a record of live birth.  In any case, none of that makes a difference to me!

By the way, must you say he is intelligent? You implied the alternative, McCain isn't! This is how you throw a legitimate argument off course.

@topic,

On a lighter note, can someone please share the following video with the Prof. Even Chris Rock gets it!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

@topic,

And by the way, Powell chided the Prof for causing the situation to degenerate.

General Colin Powell, one of the nation's most prominent African-American leaders, put some of the blame on Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. for the confrontation that has become a raging controversy.

Asked in an interview airing on CNN's "Larry King Live" tonight whether Gates was wrong to confront Cambridge police Sergeant James Crowley before being arrested in his own home, Powell replied, "I'm saying that Skip, perhaps in this instance, might have waited a while, come outside, talked to the officer, and that might have been the end of it.

"I think he should have reflected on whether or not this was the time to make that big a deal. But, he's just home from China, just home from New York. All he wanted to do was get to bed," added Powell.

The former secretary of state was then asked about whether the incident is part of a long history of blacks being unfairly targeted by police, as President Obama suggested last week.

"That may well be the case," Powell said, according to excerpts released by CNN. "But I still think that it might well have been resolved in a different manner if we didn't have this verbal altercation between the two of them.

"So, my first teaching point for young people, especially, not for Dr. Gates, that the young people, especially, is, when the police are looking into something, and if you're involved in it in one way or another, cooperate. Don't make the situation more difficult. And I think in this case, the situation was made more difficult,".

"And you could part on the part of the Cambridge Police Department. Once they felt they had to bring Dr. Gates out of the house and to handcuff him, I would have thought at that point some adult supervision would have stepped in and said, 'OK, look, it is his house. Come on, let's not take this any further. Take the handcuffs off. Goodnight, Dr. Gates.' "

In the interview, Powell also said he has been the victim of racial profiling -- and that sometimes angered him.

In one instance, Powell said, he went to meet someone at Reagan National Airport "and nobody thought I could possibly be the national security adviser to the president. I was just a black guy. And it was only when I went up to the counter and said, 'Is my guest here who's waiting for me?' did somebody say, 'Oh, you're General Powell.' It was inconceivable to him that a black guy could be the national security adviser."

Asked how he dealt with it, Powell answered, "You just suck it up. What are you going to do? It was a teaching point for him. Yes, I'm the national security adviser, I'm black. And watch, I can do the job.

"Do you get angry? Yes. Do you manifest that anger? You protest, you try to get things fixed, but it's kind of a better course of action to take it easy and don't let your anger make the current situation worse," he added. - http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/07/powell_partly_f.html

@topic,

i don't have time to be arguing back and forth on this. You might want to see this video where Black Cops and colleagues of the fine Officer (who happens to be White by the way), defended his actions. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/27/must-see-cambridge-cop-says-she-wont-vote-for-obama-again-after-gatesgate/ . I guess one will expect an attack on their personalities subsequently.

@naliakar,

Potus was very clear, both sides could have done with a little moderation. But he also ponted, out after listening to all the facts on the matter, that the burden of stupidity is for the police to prove. If Gates acted criminally, the case should be alive. And it is not.

This is how people fail exams.  Obama singled out the Police Officer for condemnation. It was not until the folly of his action became evident that he backtracked and tried to apportion blame to both parties.  What are ALL the facts you allude to? Obama in his own wrds confessed he did not know all the facts.  Which kain revisionist be this?

Laughing to keep from crying or cringing that your parvenu antics can be called out. Who the heck I am? I am sure you don’t really wanna know.

Of course I don't wanna know, it makes no difference to me whatsoever. Next time, try not to pay too much attention to people's personalities.  Accusing someone of inadequacy becuase of disagreement with a successful person only shows that you must feel inadequate in the face of others' achievements.  Get over it!

Of course I know how they talk. I would not have identified you as one if I did not. But one can tell clearly when someone’s perlance reveals the commonality of their mental specimen with Limbaugh’s or Ann Coulter’s or pastor manning etc. Who wouldn’t recognize such  progeny my dear.

Wisdom teaches that you don't just jump to conclusions, especially after admitting you do not know all the facts. It also teaches that you do not compartmentalise people that you have not met, studied or spent considerable time with.  You obvioulsy have not done any of these and here you are boasting of what you should find shameful.  I will not continue to waste my time with you if you persist in such folly.

You are right here. He was spirited out of his house to be arrested on his pouch

Spirited out of his house?  You see how you just embellish issues? He was asked out of the house where the acoustics wasn't helping communication.  He railed after the Officer the whole time and was arrested when the belligerent behavour continued.  How these series of events amount to "spiriting out" the Prof is a conclusion of an over active imagination.

The case should be alive then. What police officers arrests a criminal then cancels the charges. Are we talking dereliction of duty here. Whose perspective on the matter between gates and the police is vindicated by the hurried, if not embarrassing halt to the case?.

Charges can be dropped for many reasons. Political expediency sometimes trumps following the law to the letter. Why else would the Officer insist he will not apologise?  Why would the Police Union give him their unconditional support despite antagonism from the Governor and the President? And if we should continue with your line of logic, why isn't the Prof pressing charges agains the Officer? Why back down if you feel your rights have been trampled upon?

Your arguments remind a lot about one of Soyinka’s characters “Salubi” Omo agbepo. The pity of it tayo-D, you are such a good foil and I like that.

Just as I said earlier, you obviously can't reason outside a box.  No wonder you are either compartmentalising people or force-fitting everyone into a character.  Such actions may help a lazy mind get through life, but they will sure lead him astray most times.

If your take of the Gates versus police saga is informed by some knowledge of race relations in America, you will see the folly of being the massa's mouthpiece.

Now you wanna talk about race relations in America.  Here is probably a non-US resident lecturing those of us who live through the experience everyday. Oh the folly of the self-righteous.

@pres-elect,

the only reason tayo d is in this debate is to criticise obama and he successfully did so by using the word stupidly for the POTUS even the police officer did not use such description for the POTUS.

I can understand otele's argument. he means the prof should have been more wary of racists. but tayo's case? if obama is for it, it must be bad

this my friend sef

You know, sarcasm only works when there are some underlying truths to the issue you are trying to promote. My position on this matter has been consistent from the very go. If you care to do some research, you will find I have been on this topic before Obama's ill-advised condemnation of that fine Officer. So saying I am only here because of Obama is factually inaccurate. Unlike you guys, my world does not revolve around him.