Anybody Unpleasently Surprised?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

Quote honestly, whoever the Republicans put up as their nominee for President was fucked from the start. People had so much hatred for Bush, that it seemed for me, that it was kinda like guilt by association. I think people were so pissed and upset, they really didnt care if the idea of a black president was bad. I think people were willing to take the chance, because after all, what could have been worse than Bush. Nothing against John McCain, I like him alot, but when John McCain became the puppet of the Repubs, I think people just lost their love for him. I feel bad for McCain, I really do think that he wants to help the people, but he is under too much political pressure from his party.

Someone mentioned earlier that this isn’t the CHANGE people were wanting or expecting. I agree. I think Obama gave everyone what they wanted to hear, and alot of people bought into it. Now he has gotten out of control with the spending.

42

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…

MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.

Chickens…yes

Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)

Automatic weapons and silencers…no

And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.

Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?

Mufasa

I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.

mike

x2

Believe what you wish…

…X2…

Mufasa

[/quote]

If that is per birth it is impossible because we need more than 2 births per woman to hold the population constant and yet it was growing.

43

Yawn…

GOP Blowjob barn in full effect. Thank God you people only represent the psychotic fringe.

Back to your militia groups now. They’ll be lost without you.

44

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…

MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.

Chickens…yes

Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)

Automatic weapons and silencers…no

And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.

Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?

Mufasa

I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.

mike

You don’t even have to go back that far.

Read accounts of women crossing the plains on the trek Westward.

You only have to spend a short time in an L&D to realize how much can go wrong before, during and after a delivery…then the 50% mortality rate is very believable. And all you need to do is go to a third World country and you’ll see the morbidity.

Believe whatever you wish.

Mufasa

[/quote]

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/1/241S

Much of that L&D trouble comes by way of the intrusion by the medical professionals in the process. Consider that in America we run a 30% c-section rate. Our midwife…6%.

mike

45

[quote]orion wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…

MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.

Chickens…yes

Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)

Automatic weapons and silencers…no

And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.

Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?

Mufasa

I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.

mike

x2

Believe what you wish…

…X2…

Mufasa

If that is per birth it is impossible because we need more than 2 births per woman to hold the population constant and yet it was growing.

[/quote]

???

The time frame was the 1700’s.

Mufasa

46

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…

MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.

Chickens…yes

Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)

Automatic weapons and silencers…no

And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.

Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?

Mufasa

I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.

mike

You don’t even have to go back that far.

Read accounts of women crossing the plains on the trek Westward.

You only have to spend a short time in an L&D to realize how much can go wrong before, during and after a delivery…then the 50% mortality rate is very believable. And all you need to do is go to a third World country and you’ll see the morbidity.

Believe whatever you wish.

Mufasa

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/1/241S

Much of that L&D trouble comes by way of the intrusion by the medical professionals in the process. Consider that in America we run a 30% c-section rate. Our midwife…6%.

mike[/quote]

  1. I fail to believe that Idaho allows midwives to perform C-sections.

  2. The article you posted concerned increased maternal mortality, due to POOR medical interventions from about 1870 to 1930. 2009 fetal/maternal medicine and neonatology is light-years away from what it was in 1970, much less 1920.

  3. Birth, while beautiful and natural, inherently has risk involved both for the mother and the baby.

  4. Most states (and I don’t think Idaho is any different) requires OB back-up for all mid-wives. Does you mid-wife exercise that option when things begin to turn for the worst? Or does she allow the baby to die rather than call those “evil” OB’s?

Mufasa

47

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

  1. I fail to believe that Idaho allows midwives to perform C-sections.
    [/quote]

Of course not. The 6% is when the kid has to go to the hospital for one. That short a remark hardly explains the vast difference in the numbers though doesn’t it?

No, we weren’t required to have a backup OB, but we had notified the hospital in advance in the event we had to show up. We had the midwife, her assistant and a backup midwife. She was also a trained EMT and we had the truck on standby to get to the hospital.

Besides, I’m not entirely sure what your point is here, getting back to it, the idea is that homebirth is an option we just don’t have in many states these days, and an obvious encroachment on liberty. Hell even in Idaho they just made licensing mandatory, and I consider this the freest (is that a word?) state in the union.

mike

48

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
orion wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…

MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.

Chickens…yes

Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)

Automatic weapons and silencers…no

And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.

Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?

Mufasa

I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.

mike

x2

Believe what you wish…

…X2…

Mufasa

If that is per birth it is impossible because we need more than 2 births per woman to hold the population constant and yet it was growing.

???

The time frame was the 1700’s.

Mufasa

[/quote]

And the math was different then?

49

[quote]Cowboy_69 wrote:
I am ANYTHING but surprised by developments. I cant help but chuckle at all of those who thought SupaStar Obama would somehow deliver you from the clusterfuck the States have buried themselves into. Ive nothing against the man, in fact I find him a very learned and respectable fellow.

Having said that, those of you who believed he somehow WOULDNT work in the interests of so-called "Big Govwernment" are, well, very fucking clueless as to the inner workings of USA government. It wouldnt matter WHO is in power; the so-called right, the so-called left, the ones who pull the strings remain largely INDEPENDENT of those alliances, my friends.
[/quote]

“The world needs a hero”

50

NO PROBLEM!

"Look back at the economy in October 2007. The Dow was at 14,000. The banks were booming. Real estate was down a little, but the experts gave no warning. They were wrong. All of them.

The U.S. government is running a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. Federal tax receipts are down 34%, which means that the deficit will go above $2 trillion. No one cares. No one says, “This is the end. The American economy will never again be what it was.”

Think “2007.” Would you have believed that Chrysler and GM were both headed for bankruptcy? In October 2007 GM shares were at $43. Now they are at $1. There was an industry called investment banking. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Goldman Sachs were not part of the commercial banking system. To survive, a few made the transition in September 2008. Some did not make the cut.

Merrill Lynch is gone. Bank of America and Citigroup were bailed out by the government. They would have gone under. They sell for a fraction of what they did in 2007.

And what do most people say? “No problem.”

There is no problem for which their answer is not “no problem.”

Medicare will go bust. Social Security will go bust. “No problem.”

The unemployment rate keeps rising. “No problem.”

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article10987.html

51

[quote]orion wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
orion wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
My bad…

MAG-10 wasn’t around in 1700.

Chickens…yes

Midwives…yes (but greater than 50% mortality among women, with untold morbidity)

Automatic weapons and silencers…no

And head injuries are a MAJOR contributor to total medical cost, that few individuals can pay for.

Are you willing to have your family scoop you off the pavement…bring you home…and put a wet rag on what used to be your forehead, in hopes that you’ll get better?

Mufasa

I didn’t know we were talking 1700 vs. now. I thought we were just going off of lost liberties. That said, I’m calling bullshit on your 50% mortality rate.

mike

x2

Believe what you wish…

…X2…

Mufasa

If that is per birth it is impossible because we need more than 2 births per woman to hold the population constant and yet it was growing.

???

The time frame was the 1700’s.

Mufasa

And the math was different then?[/quote]

First a correction; then “my point”

Thanks for keeping me on my “academic toes”, Orion. The “50%” number I posted was looking at specific parts of a total population. Maternal deaths for a population as a WHOLE are actually measured by a ratio (Maternal Mortality Ratio) looking at the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. (Example; The U.S. is ~ 7.7 and rising; Mozambique has a ratio of ~ 1,500). Exact numbers are hard to come by, but it’s a reasonable extrapolation by many that 1700’s America had an extremely high MMR.

Mikeyali…my point…

I completely support ones right to choose. Liberty and Freedom; that’s what its all about.

I guess I get a little angry when people (NOT you particularly) wish for a Freedom…but then are not willing to accept the full degree of the consequences. It gets even WORSE when those whom have to pick up the tab or clean up the consequences of other’s “freedoms” are painted as greedy pariah’s out to kill everyone, make them sick, or take away their freedoms out of a sense of greed and control. And that is EXACTLY the way Traditional Medicine is portrayed today.

You’ve all heard it: “With Freedom Comes Responsibility”. Too often people are only passionate about the former and want others to accept the latter.

So…that’s how it relates to Tiribulis’ thread.

Mufasa

52

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Yawn…

GOP Blowjob barn in full effect. Thank God you people only represent the psychotic fringe.

Back to your militia groups now. They’ll be lost without you.[/quote]

yawn…

53

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I guess I get a little angry when people (NOT you particularly) wish for a Freedom…but then are not willing to accept the full degree of the consequences. It gets even WORSE when those whom have to pick up the tab or clean up the consequences of other’s “freedoms” are painted as greedy pariah’s out to kill everyone, make them sick, or take away their freedoms out of a sense of greed and control. And that is EXACTLY the way Traditional Medicine is portrayed today.

Mufasa
[/quote]

Fair statement. Nothing quite like an entitlement libertarian. FSP in New Hampshire is built on them. I’m not anti-traditional medicine. I’m not anti-corporate profits yadda yadda. I may want to keep with the home birthing because I think it’s best for my kid, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to deny chemo if she gets cancer to show up the corrupt system.

I just think you have to do your own homework most of the time. Why is it that when we take our car to the mechanic we expect to get screwed, but when we go to the doctor ( a body mechanic) we think they’re trustworthy? Docs push shit you don’t need in order to fill their wallets and those of the phamaceuticals throwing the big money around. But they also push stuff you do need that years of schooling taught them will save your ass. And if there wasn’t big money being made by big medicine then we’d still be curing people by bleeding them with leeches.

mike

54

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< Tiribulus seems to suggest “he saw it coming” when it was already present. >>>[/quote]

And I have said one thousand times that we have been heading down the road to tyrannical federal collectivism for decades and decades. A thing that can be attested to by many here who have read me (and others) saying it.

What I (and others) saw coming was the federal afterburners being engaged if this blatant, neon adorned enemy of what’s left of the American way of life took office with equally abhorrent and maybe worse allies controlling the house and the senate.

I let my guard down for a grand total of about 6 hours one day in Feb. in a vain attempt at seeing something red, white and blue in this man, but quickly regained my senses.

If I had a bit more time I could link dozens of posts by myself (and others) spelling out in no uncertain terms the breakneck speed at which they would leverage his honeymoon to vacuum up as much power as possible before enough people woke up if they ever do.

We are witnessing a textbook propaganda campaign. The difference between this one and the ones in the past is that I fear there aren’t enough citizens left in this nation with any idea of who we were or how were losing it to recover. I hope I’m wrong.

I’m not going to repeat… again… all the differences between the very flawed, but giant men who set this young country on a trajectory of unprecedented greatness and the lowlife scum that populate the halls of power today in both parties. We have handed them our freedom through apathetic ignorance and cowardice. We are teetering as I type this on the razor’s edge between revival and essential collapse. Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally change this country”. I (and others) knew what he meant, by looking not at his idiotic campaign, but at his past. He is delivering right on schedule

I meant to get back to this thread sooner, but I have been extremely busy and now I have to get ready for legs.

I’ll read more as soon as I get a chance.

55

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Fair statement. Nothing quite like an entitlement libertarian. FSP in New Hampshire is built on them. I’m not anti-traditional medicine. I’m not anti-corporate profits yadda yadda. I may want to keep with the home birthing because I think it’s best for my kid, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to deny chemo if she gets cancer to show up the corrupt system.

I just think you have to do your own homework most of the time. Why is it that when we take our car to the mechanic we expect to get screwed, but when we go to the doctor ( a body mechanic) we think they’re trustworthy? Docs push shit you don’t need in order to fill their wallets and those of the phamaceuticals throwing the big money around. But they also push stuff you do need that years of schooling taught them will save your ass. And if there wasn’t big money being made by big medicine then we’d still be curing people by bleeding them with leeches.

mike[/quote]

Superb post. My father (a general practitioner for Stonybrook Hospital who’s had an MD for quite some time) pretty much echoes this.

He’d still be against a home birth, but he frequently makes comments bashing the pushing of drugs and treatments that are uneeded. The admin in his hospital look down on him for not accepting gifts from pharma because it makes the rest of the docs look shady (even when much of the time they’re simply taking advantage of gifts).

Most of the time, the pushing is semi-subconscious. The pharma man buys you dinner a few times, you remember his product and all those nice things he said about it. Maybe it really QOULD be good to try out on some patients hmm? That’s usually how it goes, or so I’m told.

56

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:

Great points, Bolt…

But one thing I bet you can also almost guarantee…that when this Act was being drafted, there were PLENTY of Senators and Representatives…Right and Left…pushing their way up to the Trough for their piece.

Actually not - the GOP was frozen outside of the drafting of it, which is why all House GOPers (and some Democrats) voted against it.

Ah…but “Red” States ended up with as much of the “Pork” (if not more, in some cases) as the “Blue” ones, correct?

Egos may have been bruised by not being involved in the drafting; but all States ended up with a huge chunk of stimulus Dollars.

Mufasa

[/quote]

But that’s the point. There is a whole segment of the population, how big I can’t say, but significant, who have no allegiance to party affiliation any more who are sick and tired of ever expanding, suffocating, inefficient, and increasingly corrupt G O V E R N M E N T. I didn’t like McCain and liked Palin less. My allegiance is to principles that have long since been abandoned by both parties. I hate, I mean HATE centralized power structures that are any larger or intrusive than is necessary to hold and protect order for self sufficient citizens. I do not care which party violates that.

Crime of all kinds, poverty(but especially violent and sexual), domestic discord, the economy, name something. All of it has gotten increasingly worse the more money we spend and the more federal intervention there is. What are we gonna do to improve things? Positively dwarf, in astronomical fashion, all previous government growth and spending combined and multiplied.

That’s like dumping gasoline on a fire to put it out. These power mongers in DC are about nothing, but making themselves as necessary to as many people as they possibly can and this bunch has turned it into a sport while snickering in derisive scorn at the lemmings who are going along with it.

57

Insightful as always, Tiribulis.

I will always agree with anyone who feels that our Government is too big; too wasteful; and often too intrusive. My issue is with those who feel that one Party or the other; or one end of the Political Spectrum or the other is somehow “different”.

And I certainly won’t blame all the Government’s current problems on Obama.

They may all talk different rhetoric; and they all may state that they know what the American people want…but in the end…and many have stated this already…the DEMS and GOP end up being different sides of the same coin.

(Hey…no Love for the Red Wings? I don’t follow hockey closely, but aren’t they leading 2-0 in the Stanley Cup Playoffs?)

Maybe another thread, huh?

Mufasa

58

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Insightful as always, Tiribulis.

I will always agree with anyone who feels that our Government is too big; too wasteful; and often too intrusive. My issue is with those who feel that one Party or the other; or one end of the Political Spectrum or the other is somehow “different”.

And I certainly won’t blame all the Government’s current problems on Obama.

They may all talk different rhetoric; and they all may state that they know what the American people want…but in the end…and many have stated this already…the DEMS and GOP end up being different sides of the same coin.

(Hey…no Love for the Red Wings? I don’t follow hockey closely, but aren’t they leading 2-0 in the Stanley Cup Playoffs?)

Maybe another thread, huh?

Mufasa[/quote]

Obama and his cronies are on a whole nother level. They are not different sides of the same coin.

59

Yes, in reply to the OP, I voted for him, and I’ve been unpleasantly surprised.

I’m unimpressed with the way the administration’s managed the financial crisis; it’s been ad hoc and very vulnerable to moral hazard. I think it’s cause for concern that the President thinks he can replace a CEO and bypass the legal bankruptcy process. The debt he’s running up is vast enough to scare me. I’m horrified that he’s suspended habeas corpus. I really don’t like the way the government picks out industries to bless with the stimulus – it’s inefficient and vulnerable to corruption. I’m creeped out by his propagandistic style. Time will tell, but I’m starting to worry that Obama’s going to continue Bush’s expansion of arbitrary executive power.

I’m in no way a right-winger. I just want a president who doesn’t behave like a monarch.

60

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
<<< Of course deficit spending and redistribution started a very long time ago. However, this president is looking to take them to levels heretofore never imagined. That’s what Trib says he saw coming. >>>[/quote]

I just saw this and yes you are absolutely correct, but not just me. I’m not trying to pass myself off some kind of prophet. I said this during the campaign and I’ll say it again. I know everything I’ll ever need to know about a candidate, in the internet age, within about 12 hours of their announcing. In the old days, you had to go to the library and sift through the congressional record and some other references so it took a few days usually.

I pay ZEEROH mind to anything any of these lying slugs says during a campaign. They will say anything and I do mean ANYTHING to get elected. Their record tells me everything I need to know.

Obama made me feel like I was on a target floor in the WTC looking out the window at a rapidly approaching airliner. Add in Pelosi, Reid and the gang and we can make it 2 airliners at twice the speed. It took almost no analysis that I can credit myself with, it was just as plain as if I were looking out that window. HOH LEE CRAP!!! Disaster is on the horizon if we give these people the reigns. I have been watching all the abominable legislation that the libs in the house and the senate had been fantasizing about for 20 years. Here comes their rubber stamp. It was a first grade mathematics equation.