Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-13-2018, 06:44 AM   #16
Nanners
hugh mungus what?
 
Nanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oregon
Posts: 8,228
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meticode
Their nuclear test site is destroyed. People in North Korea are starving. They're vulnerable right now. Of course he'd want peace.

this makes no sense. its not really that hard to find a new nuclear test site, especially when you are a dictator who gives zero shits about the wellbeing of his people... and the people were just as starving and vulnerable back when the test site was in operation as they are today...
Nanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 07:07 AM   #17
Nanners
hugh mungus what?
 
Nanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oregon
Posts: 8,228
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstern
I know the answers and reasons for many things, but not for most things. I am part of an intelligence community.

That's why if you follow some of my comment they don't fit the norm. For example I'm pro Obama, anti Hillary, and I'm pro Trump, despite mostly arguing with Trump supporters. The reasons why, no one here would ever be able to speculate.

I call bullshit that you are part of the intelligence community, and I also call bullshit on anyone who claims to be pro Obama while simultaneously being pro trump and anti Hillary.

The only substantial difference between Hillary and Obama is that Obama is actually charismatic. They both support the same policies (pro corporate america, pro endless war/violence/torture, pro spying on the american public, pro trade deals like the TPP that have decimated this country, pro student debt, pro toxic identity politics, anti universal healthcare, anti accountability, anti labor unions, anti accountability...etc). Also if you have paid any attention to what Mr and Mrs Obama have done since they left office, you would be disturbed by the fact that they have spent the past 2 years collecting "speaking fees" from the same people and corporations who bribed Hillary... not to mention the fact that the Obamas have both been condescendingly lecturing the nation on our racism and stupidity for voting for Trump.

The funny thing is that Trump never could have been elected without Obamas lies and betrayal of the middle class. When americans voted for "hope" and "change" in 2008 they were desperate. At the time, millions of americans were in the process of being kicked out of their homes as a result of the financial crisis, and disillusionment over our foreign wars was reaching new heights with each passing day. When Obama bailed out the banks that were foreclosing on bankrupt americans, continued and expanded the wars, and otherwise failed to deliver any of the hope or change that he promised... cynicism toward the political system skyrocketed to levels never before seen in this nation. Remember when Obama promised to close Guantanamo? I remember... yet 10 years later we still have torture victims held there indefinitely without any kind of trial. If Obama had actually delivered on any of his promises, the democrats likely would have won the election, but instead Obamas betrayal and broken promises resulted in mass disillusionment and cynicism toward the entire political system, and this resulted in the rise of populists like Trump and Bernie.

Last edited by Nanners : 06-13-2018 at 07:14 AM.
Nanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 09:37 AM   #18
LeThanos
Banned
 
LeThanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: 3*/9
Posts: 462
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Now that they have the nukes and the security that comes with them, they can make some concessions as long as its not about them losing their nuclear arsenal.
LeThanos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 04:35 PM   #19
bladefd
NBA rookie of the year
 
bladefd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,635
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanners
The funny thing is that Trump never could have been elected without Obamas lies and betrayal of the middle class. When americans voted for "hope" and "change" in 2008 they were desperate. At the time, millions of americans were in the process of being kicked out of their homes as a result of the financial crisis, and disillusionment over our foreign wars was reaching new heights with each passing day. When Obama bailed out the banks that were foreclosing on bankrupt americans, continued and expanded the wars, and otherwise failed to deliver any of the hope or change that he promised... cynicism toward the political system skyrocketed to levels never before seen in this nation. Remember when Obama promised to close Guantanamo? I remember... yet 10 years later we still have torture victims held there indefinitely without any kind of trial. If Obama had actually delivered on any of his promises, the democrats likely would have won the election, but instead Obamas betrayal and broken promises resulted in mass disillusionment and cynicism toward the entire political system, and this resulted in the rise of populists like Trump and Bernie.

Do you feel McCain/Palin would have done a better job than Obama/Biden?
bladefd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 05:04 PM   #20
jstern
NBA lottery pick
 
jstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,829
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanners
I call bullshit that you are part of the intelligence community, and I also call bullshit on anyone who claims to be pro Obama while simultaneously being pro trump and anti Hillary.

The only substantial difference between Hillary and Obama is that Obama is actually charismatic. They both support the same policies (pro corporate america, pro endless war/violence/torture, pro spying on the american public, pro trade deals like the TPP that have decimated this country, pro student debt, pro toxic identity politics, anti universal healthcare, anti accountability, anti labor unions, anti accountability...etc). Also if you have paid any attention to what Mr and Mrs Obama have done since they left office, you would be disturbed by the fact that they have spent the past 2 years collecting "speaking fees" from the same people and corporations who bribed Hillary... not to mention the fact that the Obamas have both been condescendingly lecturing the nation on our racism and stupidity for voting for Trump.

The funny thing is that Trump never could have been elected without Obamas lies and betrayal of the middle class. When americans voted for "hope" and "change" in 2008 they were desperate. At the time, millions of americans were in the process of being kicked out of their homes as a result of the financial crisis, and disillusionment over our foreign wars was reaching new heights with each passing day. When Obama bailed out the banks that were foreclosing on bankrupt americans, continued and expanded the wars, and otherwise failed to deliver any of the hope or change that he promised... cynicism toward the political system skyrocketed to levels never before seen in this nation. Remember when Obama promised to close Guantanamo? I remember... yet 10 years later we still have torture victims held there indefinitely without any kind of trial. If Obama had actually delivered on any of his promises, the democrats likely would have won the election, but instead Obamas betrayal and broken promises resulted in mass disillusionment and cynicism toward the entire political system, and this resulted in the rise of populists like Trump and Bernie.

I don't get into political arguments, because what people know is so superficial and lacking the true reality of things, like everything else in life. Like I said things are different now and will stay different for many years to come. I guess you can say that's a bold statement, considering Kim in the past. But I said it with full confidence.

Obama hates Hillary, and Trump is actually a good guy doing what he has to do, even if it means coming across as a racist bigot. Sometimes you just have to pretend to be friends in politics (Obama and Hillary) else it would only destroy things. The Kim situation, it's a little too complicated. Lets just say it's almost not the same person.
jstern is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 05:11 PM   #21
Nanners
hugh mungus what?
 
Nanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oregon
Posts: 8,228
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bladefd
Do you feel McCain/Palin would have done a better job than Obama/Biden?

what do you mean by better job? overall they would have obviously been worse, but they might have been better in some ways, like managing expectations. While everyone expected Obama to follow through on his promises of "change", McCain didnt make many promises and nobody really expected jack shit from him... so naturally there would have been far less disappointment and disillusionment. I dont think Trump would currently be president if McCain had won in 2008.
Nanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 05:15 PM   #22
Nanners
hugh mungus what?
 
Nanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oregon
Posts: 8,228
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jstern
I don't get into political arguments, because what people know is so superficial and lacking the true reality of things, like everything else in life. Like I said things are different now and will stay different for many years to come. I guess you can say that's a bold statement, considering Kim in the past. But I said it with full confidence.

Obama hates Hillary, and Trump is actually a good guy doing what he has to do, even if it means coming across as a racist bigot. Sometimes you just have to pretend to be friends in politics (Obama and Hillary) else it would only destroy things. The Kim situation, it's a little too complicated. Lets just say it's almost not the same person.



So everything is too complicated for all of us simple joes who cant grasp the true reality of things... or maybe you are just completely full of shit. Personally I would put my money on the latter.

Did you like Obama simply because he hated Hillary? Even if he did hate Hillary, that doesnt change the fact that policy wise they are virtually identical.
Nanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 05:41 PM   #23
bladefd
NBA rookie of the year
 
bladefd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,635
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanners
what do you mean by better job? overall they would have obviously been worse, but they might have been better in some ways, like managing expectations. While everyone expected Obama to follow through on his promises of "change", McCain didnt make many promises and nobody really expected jack shit from him... so naturally there would have been far less disappointment and disillusionment. I dont think Trump would currently be president if McCain had won in 2008.

Truth be told, I had low expectations regardless of who ended up in that office in January 09. I honestly thought we were going to go full great depression in that 08/09 timeframe. The conditions were that bad for that 1yr period.. Just a couple small mistakes there from a president, and we go full-on great depression, which nobody wants. Considering what was at stake in that tiny window, Obama made a few key moves there to keep us from another great depression.

You might not agree with all of the bailouts - I personally was against bailouts at that moment too bc I felt it was a very dangerous precedent to set - but it worked in bringing our economy back. Weren't the bailouts repaid in full by all of those companies? I still wonder sometimes how things would have gone without bailouts and letting companies like GM liquidate into bankruptcy. Nobody knows what would have happened if there were no bailouts at all.. Obama administration didn't want to take that risk, and I don't blame them looking back in hindsight.

Ultimately, expectations don't mean jack once you enter the office. Expectations only matter leading up to it, but they go out the window once you take that seat. Only thing that matters after January 31st is what you do or don't do. The results are what we use to judge success or failure. Overall, I believe history will look back and judge Obama as a success.
bladefd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 06:00 PM   #24
Nanners
hugh mungus what?
 
Nanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oregon
Posts: 8,228
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bladefd
Truth be told, I had low expectations regardless of who ended up in that office in January 09. I honestly thought we were going to go full great depression in that 08/09 timeframe. The conditions were that bad for that 1yr period.. Just a couple small mistakes there from a president, and we go full-on great depression, which nobody wants. Considering what was at stake in that tiny window, Obama made a few key moves there to keep us from another great depression.

Back in 2008 I was enough of an optimistic fool to believe that Obama was actually going to follow through on his platform and promises. The way that Obama handled his first term (especially the first two years where he had a supermajority) completely killed what little optimism I once had. In a sense Obama is responsible for making me the pessimistic and cynical asshole I am today.

Quote:
You might not agree with all of the bailouts - I personally was against bailouts at that moment too bc I felt it was a very dangerous precedent to set - but it worked in bringing our economy back. Weren't the bailouts repaid in full by all of those companies? I still wonder sometimes how things would have gone without bailouts and letting companies like GM liquidate into bankruptcy. Nobody knows what would have happened if there were no bailouts at all.. Obama administration didn't want to take that risk, and I don't blame them looking back in hindsight.

I think that instead of bailing out the banks, we should have bailed out the people who owed money to the banks. There should have been a govt backed program allowing borrowers with crazy unsustainable mortgages to refinance at a low fixed rate. The financial crisis was basically triggered by too many people being unable to pay their mortgages, so it seems like subsidizing these mortgages would have basically solved the problem.

Quote:
Ultimately, expectations don't mean jack once you enter the office. Expectations only matter leading up to it, but they go out the window once you take that seat. Only thing that matters after January 31st is what you do or don't do. The results are what we use to judge success or failure. Overall, I believe history will look back and judge Obama as a success.

Expectations exist whether you like it or not. When you make a bunch of promises and then fail to follow through on any of them, people are naturally going to feel betrayed.

Bill Clinton probably did more to harm average americans than any other president in US history (hes also a rapist), and yet history seems to view him as a smashing success... so you are probably right that Obama will receive the same treatment. That said, anybody who has been paying attention knows that Obama was an appalling president who passed some of the most unamerican legislation ever written - like effectively ending habeus corpus, forcing people to buy private health insurance, and ending the smith-mundt act (the law that prohibited govt backed propaganda directed toward US citizens)... just off the top of my head.
Nanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 06:34 PM   #25
jstern
NBA lottery pick
 
jstern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,829
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanners


So everything is too complicated for all of us simple joes who cant grasp the true reality of things... or maybe you are just completely full of shit. Personally I would put my money on the latter.

Did you like Obama simply because he hated Hillary? Even if he did hate Hillary, that doesnt change the fact that policy wise they are virtually identical.

It's not that it's too complicated for the average person (though it might be), it's that how can one make conclusions from things they are not aware of and have no concept of? For example, how can one explain in full details the complexity of machine language to a kid who hasn't learned how to multiply, when he's going to have no concepts of all the things that he needs to learn to get to that level. People come to conclusion about everything in life, when in reality they are missing so much of the reality of whatever the subject is. "But, how can Obama hate Hillary when they are both democrats? That's 100% BS." They would never be able to get past that point because 99% of people are really in that little kid's stage.
jstern is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 06:51 PM   #26
bladefd
NBA rookie of the year
 
bladefd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,635
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanners
I think that instead of bailing out the banks, we should have bailed out the people who owed money to the banks. There should have been a govt backed program allowing borrowers with crazy unsustainable mortgages to refinance at a low fixed rate. The financial crisis was basically triggered by too many people being unable to pay their mortgages, so it seems like subsidizing these mortgages would have basically solved the problem.

That doesn't solve anything though to just buy out the people at the bottom of the line from a business perspective. For the bailouts, the government invested and bought shares/bonds in those very companies.

Obama wanted to raise taxes as well on the banks for 10yrs if they took a bailout, which would repay the taxpayers.. Congress didn't pass that.

Quote:
The program required banks to give the government a 5 percent dividend that would increase to 9 percent in 2013. That encouraged banks to buy back the stock within five years. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson knew the government would make a profit because bank share prices would rise by 2013.

Quote:
President Obama wanted to tax the banks to repay taxpayers for $120 billion to $141 billion he thought they would lose from TARP. Obama planned to levy the tax over 10 years on the banks' riskiest activities, such as trading. He didn't want to tax banks' retail operations because it would get passed on to customers as higher prices. His proposal didn't pass. Instead, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act limited the amount of money authorized under TARP to $475 billion.

Did you forget the government is a business too?

Anyways, everything got repaid with interest, and US treasury made out with some valuable shares/bonds in return. What would the government have gotten in return by just bailing out the people who owed the banks? Absolutely nothing. You have to go after the sources, and I do wish Obama's proposal for 10yr tax on the bailed-out companies had passed through Congress.

The Dodd-Frank Reform was another step in the right direction. The Donald has been trying hard to make Congress reverse the Dodd-Frank.. Tells you all you need to know..

Quote:
Expectations exist whether you like it or not. When you make a bunch of promises and then fail to follow through on any of them, people are naturally going to feel betrayed.

Bill Clinton probably did more to harm average americans than any other president in US history (hes also a rapist), and yet history seems to view him as a smashing success... so you are probably right that Obama will receive the same treatment. That said, anybody who has been paying attention knows that Obama was an appalling president who passed some of the most unamerican legislation ever written - like effectively ending habeus corpus, forcing people to buy private health insurance, and ending the smith-mundt act (the law that prohibited govt backed propaganda directed toward US citizens)... just off the top of my head.

The deficit became a surplus under Clinton. Things were going fairly well under Clinton. He was a successful president with all things considered.

Wasn't habeas corpus restored at some point? I remember Obama saying it would be temporarily suspended concerning the Guantanamo bay, but I don't know what happened since..

As for health insurance, truth is everyone has to contribute into the system. If a bunch of people have insurance but others don't, who pays for your healthcare if you are not insured & end up in hospital?? The burden ends up on those who are insured to pay for those refusing/unwilling to buy insurance. From that perspective, it makes sense for there to be a mandate for everyone to buy insurance. Unless if you have a better idea?
bladefd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 07:17 PM   #27
Nanners
hugh mungus what?
 
Nanners's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: oregon
Posts: 8,228
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bladefd
That doesn't solve anything though to just buy out the people at the bottom of the line from a business perspective. For the bailouts, the government invested and bought shares/bonds in those very companies.

Obama wanted to raise taxes as well on the banks for 10yrs if they took a bailout, which would repay the taxpayers.. Congress didn't pass that.

it solves everything. banks rely on mortgage payments -> banks fail because people cant pay their mortgages -> govt bails out borrowers, and this money immediately goes to the banks.

the banks would have received the money they were owed, and the people would have kept their homes instead of having millions of foreclosures.

Quote:
Did you forget the government is a business too?

wtf are you talking about? the govt is most definitely not a business.

Quote:
Anyways, everything got repaid with interest, and US treasury made out with some valuable shares/bonds in return. What would the government have gotten in return by just bailing out the people who owed the banks? Absolutely nothing. You have to go after the sources, and I do wish Obama's proposal for 10yr tax on the bailed-out companies had passed through Congress.

Whether the bailout ultimately cost the govt money is irrelevant. The important thing is that the govt would have received the love and appreciation of the people if they had bailed out borrowers instead of the banks.

I dont understand finance very well, but you probably cant even manage a piggy bank. Under my proposed solution, the govt still would have been paid back, the difference is that this repayment would have come from the people instead of by the banks.


Quote:
The deficit became a surplus under Clinton. Things were going fairly well under Clinton. He was a successful president with all things considered.

so govt spending is the only thing that matters?

Bill gutted the nations workforce with nafta, he repealed glass-steagal which caused the 2008 financial crisis, he caused the mass incarceration of blacks with his crime bill, he turned dozens of news and media companies into just 6 with his telecomm bill, he dramatically increased child poverty with his "welfare reform", he banned gay marriage on the federal level, and as icing on the cake he is a creepy ass rapist. Bill Clinton was a shitty president and he is a shitty human being.

Quote:
Wasn't habeas corpus restored at some point? I remember Obama saying it would be temporarily suspended concerning the Guantanamo bay, but I don't know what happened since..

nope

Quote:
As for health insurance, truth is everyone has to contribute into the system. If a bunch of people have insurance but others don't, who pays for your healthcare if you are not insured & end up in hospital?? The burden ends up on those who are insured to pay for those refusing/unwilling to buy insurance. From that perspective, it makes sense for there to be a mandate for everyone to buy insurance. Unless if you have a better idea?

Yeah I have a MUCH better idea, lets just have govt backed universal healthcare like literally every other developed nation on this planet.

The US govt currently spends ~8.5k per capita on medicare and medicaid alone. Countries like France spend half of that for full universal coverage. Its beyond preposterous, our govt currently spends twice as much on our shitty incomplete healthcare system as european nations are paying for full coverage. Our healthcare system is a ****ing joke.

Last edited by Nanners : 06-13-2018 at 07:20 PM.
Nanners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2018, 08:32 PM   #28
bladefd
NBA rookie of the year
 
bladefd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6,635
Default Re: Were we wrong about Kim Jung?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanners
it solves everything. banks rely on mortgage payments -> banks fail because people cant pay their mortgages -> govt bails out borrowers, and this money immediately goes to the banks.

the banks would have received the money they were owed, and the people would have kept their homes instead of having millions of foreclosures.


Every action in life involves some sense of bartering.. You give me x, and I give you y in exchange. The US Treasury is no different in that manner. US treasury received bonds and shares in return for the TARP bailout money. Face it, the US treasury cut a deal with the banks for the government's benefit.

Why would the treasury bailout people at the bottom for nothing in return?? By dealing directly with the banks, you can make them pay back the amount you bailed them out for WITH interest AND getting some valuable bonds/shares out of it. But if you bail out the people, don't expect them to pay you back and it wouldn't make sense to charge them interest for the bailout.

Also one of the main reasons banks failed was due to their own fraudulent doing. If you as government pay off the debts on behalf of the borrowers then the banks get to continue their fraud without losing or giving anything up in the process. You freaking make them pay for it, and force them to change their policies for their f*ckups..


Quote:

wtf are you talking about? the govt is most definitely not a business.


It shouldn't be, but it is. Take a look at how much money politicians and others, such as military contractors, pocket through the government. Check out the net-worth of members of Congress - most of them fall into the top 1%. Everyone wants to make money - you think the government is exempt from that? Hah! There are people in the government profiting off the backs of the tax-payers every day.

I wish the government wasn't a business and historically it wasn't.. But somewhere along the line, we lost our way. If you don't see how the government has become a business over the last 50-60yrs then you are deceiving yourself.


Quote:
Whether the bailout ultimately cost the govt money is irrelevant. The important thing is that the govt would have received the love and appreciation of the people if they had bailed out borrowers instead of the banks.

I dont understand finance very well, but you probably cant even manage a piggy bank. Under my proposed solution, the govt still would have been paid back, the difference is that this repayment would have come from the people instead of by the banks.

Repayment in love and appreciation.. I will leave that alone.

Quote:
so govt spending is the only thing that matters?

Bill gutted the nations workforce with nafta, he repealed glass-steagal which caused the 2008 financial crisis, he caused the mass incarceration of blacks with his crime bill, he turned dozens of news and media companies into just 6 with his telecomm bill, he dramatically increased child poverty with his "welfare reform", he banned gay marriage on the federal level, and as icing on the cake he is a creepy ass rapist. Bill Clinton was a shitty president and he is a shitty human being.

Some of those concerns are reasonable. All things said though, I don't think anyone but you consider Bill a failure of a president.

Who else thinks Bill Clinton was a sh!t president?
[crickets]


Quote:
Yeah I have a MUCH better idea, lets just have govt backed universal healthcare like literally every other developed nation on this planet.

The US govt currently spends ~8.5k per capita on medicare and medicaid alone. Countries like France spend half of that for full universal coverage. Its beyond preposterous, our govt currently spends twice as much on our shitty incomplete healthcare system as european nations are paying for full coverage. Our healthcare system is a ****ing joke.

I'm with you on universal single-payer healthcare system. Always been, but there is no way that could have passed Congress in 2012.. Obamacare is the halfway point and look at the meltdown GOP has been having for a halfway healthcare bill. Do you really think full-on single-payer healthcare bill would pass in this political environment??

Last edited by bladefd : 06-13-2018 at 08:36 PM.
bladefd is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:


Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47 PM.






NBA BASKETBALL FORUM KEY LINKS:

NBA Basketball

NBA Rumors

Basketball Blog

NBA Videos

Search Site

FOLLOW US
Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
YouTube
















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy