PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts



Santana4Prez'08
11-15-2008, 10:35 PM
what does everyone think of what the election turnout was?
what does everyone think is going to happen?
who's happy with the turnout?
this should get a good debate going.
and fyi, i think thatthe election turnout was bad, i think america is going to be in for a rough four years, and obviously, im not happy with the turnout.
i hate bush cuz he is a conservative
i really really really hate obama because he is a psycho liberal.
we need a moderate, john mccain, but now we have the wrong man in the white house.

CanadianKid1987
11-15-2008, 10:49 PM
I have been rooting for Obama ever since his keynote speech at the 2004 democratic convention. I was soooo happy with the results of the presdential election. There were also a lot of senate races I was happy with too (Hagan and Shaheen). There were a couple of other things I was not so happy about though.

Santana4Prez'08
11-15-2008, 10:53 PM
ah, i see
idk, i really don't trust his judgement. the associations that he has are absoleutly terrible, and then he goes back and lies about them.
like i do understand that he's a symbol of change, thats well and good, but i dont think its going to be good change. the only change i think we're gonna have is the change in our pockets after he takes all of our money.

CanadianKid1987
11-15-2008, 10:56 PM
Something about John McCain running the economy... I dont know... it scares me. And could you imagine if god forbid something happened to him and sarah palin was in charge....

spartanbear
11-16-2008, 01:00 AM
No politician can hinder your self determination. Overall you have more to do with your own fate than whosever in the White House. I voted for the first time this year and let me say that just like drinking absinthe I don't plan on making a habit out of it.

CubsGirl
11-16-2008, 02:43 AM
No politician can hinder your self determination. Overall you have more to do with your own fate than whosever in the White House. I voted for the first time this year and let me say that just like drinking absinthe I don't plan on making a habit out of it.
The March primary was my first time voting too, but unlike your sentiments, I plan to make a BIG habit of voting. Local elections affect you exponentially more than state and national elections do. I plan to research for and vote in every election possible.

spartanbear
11-16-2008, 03:34 AM
^^^I agree there but since it's going to be quite a while before mrs sb, baby sb and I will be in a permanent location I won't necessarily have much of an incentive to vote. I don't think we'll live in one state for more than two years for the next 10 yrs let's say (my job's the problem) but I still agree with you. Maybe I'll have a stint in there where we'll be in one place for like 4 years so maybe I'll vote then but I'm not sure that if we're in TX let's say that my vote will do much to affect the outcome of a local election. The opinions of the community we'll move in we be pretty set.

I'm a young black dude from inner city (southside of chicago) who spent much of his life at catholic school, then went to college in MI who's fiscally and generally speaking a bit conservative but when it comes to social issues I'm a "hipee liberal douche all day." (Did you catch the Southpark reference?)

Voting for Barack wasn't as easy as I thought it would be for me but I just felt he offered something of a vision for the direction of the country. I mean all I hear from conservatives...which are mostly idiot republicans is how they hate every f-ing thing. We hate gays (unless they're our male pages), we hate abortions (unless it's our underage daughter's or our son's ethnic gf's), we hate spending money (unless it's on lavish homes and cars we've obtained from underhanded dealings), we hate helping people (unless it's our cronies), we hate women's opinions (unless of course they're our prostitutes). Well you get my point. I'm so conflicted when it comes to politics and everytime I here a demo with a solid agenda they start talking about blowing money on larger gov't programs and labor unions then fail to emphasize making gov't more effecient. Then all the repubs just keep on with the no gays, no abortions, no everything. What's a spartanbear to do. I know sit on the sidelines and observe.

Seppuku
11-16-2008, 04:13 AM
what does everyone think of what the election turnout was?
what does everyone think is going to happen?
who's happy with the turnout?
this should get a good debate going.
and fyi, i think thatthe election turnout was bad, i think america is going to be in for a rough four years, and obviously, im not happy with the turnout.
i hate bush cuz he is a conservative
i really really really hate obama because he is a psycho liberal.
we need a moderate, john mccain, but now we have the wrong man in the white house.

Turn out was a lot of people. I'm surprised that it was as low as it was however.

I think we are in for a turn around on the social and economic fronts but nothing near a full recovery. I think the new admin has got a 10+ year project ahead of them and they better do it by being inclusive rather than exclusive or we are in for more of what the past 8 years have been.

I'm happy with the turnout because it turned out the way I was hoping.

I hate Bush because he is one of the most dishonest politicians I can think of. He played dirty and ran a dirty administration. People who are talented and intelligent were made to look like dishonest stooges during his administration. See the SOS thread and see about Condi. Look at Powell and his deception at the UN. How about Cheney? How about the Plame scandal? I consider some of it criminal. GWB better be thorough with his pardons and blanket a lot of folks.

I like Obama. Of our two choices, he is head and shoulders the better choice over McCain. McCain is a Maverick. We don't need a loose cannon in the WH. We don't need a hot head over the hot button. We don't need a tortured psyche for our ultimate leader. The right person for our time came out ahead.

gcoll
11-16-2008, 05:57 AM
I was disappointed with the election, though it was what I expected.

I've had a dislike for Obama for a long while. Ever since the 2004 speech, my stance on him could probably be summarized by "give me a break" or "spare me". I've never seen what the big deal is.

What will happen? I have no clue.

But this election proved to me, that people who are completely unqualified to serve as president...can become president. Or come pretty close to being vice president. There's something wrong with our system. I'm not saying there are better alternatives....but the system we are in is very flawed. Or perhaps I expect too much.

spartanbear
11-16-2008, 06:20 AM
I think you expect too much my friend. The Constitution merely says you need to be born here, at least 35 yrs old and a permanent resident for at least 14 years to be president. That's a large pool of people to me. Including Obama and Palin. I'm not sure where the "qualified to be president" argument even comes from. Are we talking lack of experience? Lack of executive experience? What? I just can't get that one because in that case the only people qualified to be president would be well...a former president. So maybe you can help me out with that one.

gcoll
11-16-2008, 08:25 AM
I think you expect too much my friend. The Constitution merely says you need to be born here, at least 35 yrs old and a permanent resident for at least 14 years to be president. That's a large pool of people to me. Including Obama and Palin. I'm not sure where the "qualified to be president" argument even comes from. Are we talking lack of experience? Lack of executive experience? What? I just can't get that one because in that case the only people qualified to be president would be well...a former president. So maybe you can help me out with that one.

The large pool of people, is exactly the problem that I see. Some people view it as a sort of "beauty", I do not.

Basically, I want to be impressed with the president. That's what a lot of it comes down to.

Look at it this way. In order to become an expert on anything, it takes an extreme amount of time and dedication. Speak to an expert physicist, the depth of their knowledge will impress you. Speak to a 4 or 5 star general. They will have a knowledge and an expertise about numerous things, that impresses you.

I want that same basic concept taken...and applied to politics.

*note. I'm not saying that Obama will be a bad president, or that an expertise will guarantee a good president.

It's just the way that I see it right now..it's as if we were a company. And we picked the leader of the company, based on who gave the best speech, rather than their level of expertise, and their past work.

Just to try and explain my point a little clearer. Barack Obama goes out and gives speeches on foreign policy, and economics quite frequently. People listen to him...and then voice their opinions. "I agree with him about X...I disagree about Y" that type of thing. We engage in it here on this forum. But we have no clue what we are talking about. Neither does he. Barack Obama doesn't know anything about economics. He doesn't know anything about foreign policy. And he's the head of the government. It makes no sense.

The problem is, there is no way around the problem that I'm talking about. There is no better alternative to our current system.

spartanbear
11-16-2008, 02:58 PM
Touche. Do you suggest maybe we amend our constitution so that it reflects the issues of today rather than the ambitions of the past? If so I'm won't disagree with you. Static and baseless belief in never changing principles won't fix the complex issues of today. We do need informed thoughts and decisions on difficult world issues.

gcoll
11-16-2008, 06:51 PM
Touche. Do you suggest maybe we amend our constitution so that it reflects the issues of today rather than the ambitions of the past? If so I'm won't disagree with you. Static and baseless belief in never changing principles won't fix the complex issues of today. We do need informed thoughts and decisions on difficult world issues.
There really isn't a solution.

The problem is just a flaw in democracy. But, there is no better system. If we were to say.....make it more difficult to become president, what you'd create is a sort of "ruling class" which would not turn out well at all.

So..you live with it. And hope that the President surrounds himself with competent people. That's why a lot of people like governors in that position. Governors have experience basically..being an executive.

But someone who has never had executive experience, and doesn't have all that much expertise...can still be a good president....so really. It's a gamble either way. If you limit the power of the government though, you decrease the amount of things they can **** up. But there's no hope of that anymore. That ship has sailed, so to speak.

spartanbear
11-16-2008, 07:18 PM
With that said up line up behind my boy BHO. Hell I got behind Bush dumb*** and now it's time to keep it moving. C'mon you don't think Obama's going to surround himself with a competent group of advisors? You have to acknowledge even if you don't like dude that he's approached this entire exercise a little different than any other guy for about twenty years. That's not just a little refreshing to you? Stance on issues aside, you can't find one thing about the guy you can at least tolerate? I mean I like Bush's personality and even when the bastard was lying through his rotten gums or laying waist to the english language I still received the message with warm and attentive ears b/c well he was kinda funny.

gcoll
11-16-2008, 07:30 PM
With that said up line up behind my boy BHO.
No. The type of people who got REALLY excited about Barack Obama....are the exact same people I really, truly hate.

I can't join them. I wish Obama luck....but I'm not boarding that bandwagon.


You have to acknowledge even if you don't like dude that he's approached this entire exercise a little different than any other guy for about twenty years
In what way? I don't understand what you are referring to.


Stance on issues aside, you can't find one thing about the guy you can at least tolerate?
I'll show him respect because he's going to be president. But beyond that. No, I don't really like anything about him.

Santana4Prez'08
11-16-2008, 07:40 PM
No. The type of people who got REALLY excited about Barack Obama....are the exact same people I really, truly hate.

I can't join them. I wish Obama luck....but I'm not boarding that bandwagon.


In what way? I don't understand what you are referring to.


I'll show him respect because he's going to be president. But beyond that. No, I don't really like anything about him.

agreed.

spartanbear
11-17-2008, 12:16 AM
Well I'm done.

hoosiercubsfan
11-17-2008, 12:39 AM
With that said up line up behind my boy BHO. Hell I got behind Bush dumb*** and now it's time to keep it moving. C'mon you don't think Obama's going to surround himself with a competent group of advisors? You have to acknowledge even if you don't like dude that he's approached this entire exercise a little different than any other guy for about twenty years. That's not just a little refreshing to you? Stance on issues aside, you can't find one thing about the guy you can at least tolerate? I mean I like Bush's personality and even when the bastard was lying through his rotten gums or laying waist to the english language I still received the message with warm and attentive ears b/c well he was kinda funny.

I understand what you are saying here as well as the rest I am sure. The problem with Obama to those who did not support him is that he is an unknown. He has a fairly liberal voting record that just does not sit well with the conservatives of this board. Does that mean we don't hope he does well for this country? Absolutely not because he is our president now also for at least the next 4 years. But that does not mean we are going to just stand up behind him and the stance on the issues that you were dismissing is the main reason behind this. I really pray that he is the pragmatic leader who does not over reach and leads from the center to just left of center. If he can do that he has a good chance at being a good/great president if not he will be bounced from office in 4 years IMHO.

spartanbear
11-17-2008, 12:33 PM
Well thank you for praying for your president. I am not a "big prayer, spiritual, holy, religious guy" (and I spent 13 in Chicago's Catholic School) but many of those who are don't share your sentiments. I've heard some of the most vicious Obama-bashing coming from those in the ultra-religious camps. Some of the stuff would get me band from this message board if I were to repeat it. Mike Huckabee said it best that being those of "faith" should pray for their Commander-in-Chief no matter who he/she is. He said he prayed for Bush and he will pray for Obama. Maybe I will re-adopt the habit too.

Many of the none-Obama folks say they don't know much about him. Those comments have continued to trouble me. I would argue that in the last 20 years no candidate has been more dissected then he has (I know there's a media was in the tank for him they're all liberals jab in there). With the glut of information that is directly at everyone's finger tips it's hard to believe that folks claim to still not know who he is. Maybe he should go around sipping coffee with everybody. (I know there's a Bill Ayers comment in their somewhere.)

As far as his voting record most conservatives or at least the one's that I hear from that point to his liberal voting record point to his stance on social issues. Which I don't really care about and personally I don't think they should either but to each his own. Honestly if the republican party would detach themselves from the whole Pro-God (and only the Jesus one not any of the others), Pro-life (except for when you're actually out of the womb), Anti-gay (except for when Father SOB starts "accidentally" feeling up little children) then they would of had my vote long ago but looks like I'll never vote republican now. To me it really appears that the conservative crowd is pushing not for more understanding, openness, or at least dialogue rather they appear to be mounting up for a Revolution of Rigidity. Just made that one up...but maybe you can speak to that for me.

ggross
11-17-2008, 01:25 PM
Touche. Do you suggest maybe we amend our constitution so that it reflects the issues of today rather than the ambitions of the past? If so I'm won't disagree with you. Static and baseless belief in never changing principles won't fix the complex issues of today. We do need informed thoughts and decisions on difficult world issues.

But we get farther and farther away from those "principles" all the time. So, I wouldn't call them static. I'd call them watered down thanks to all the "change" we get in the name of fairness and other politically correct buzzwords. IMHO, you have it flipped: Many of the "issues of today" that you mention were caused by the LOSS of our "ambitions of the past".

Free markets don't work so well when they are diluted and polluted with assinine rules and laws that always have unintended consequenses - but are always sold to us as being for the common good. We must understand that the recent failures of the financial system are not failures of free markets, but the result of polluting them.

spartanbear
11-17-2008, 02:54 PM
The ship has long sailed on "free-market capitalism" our country has always had rules of the road because in fact if we didn't not only would financial products be extremely convoluted and irresponsible in the interest of making profits. So would our food, our toys, our cars, our water, pretty much everything.There was a reason for the provisions in Glass-Stegall. I am not against free markets at all actually I probably more of a republican than my posts my lead on but let's be clear the unintended consequences you speak of are not due to the nature and spirit of the laws rather the fact that government is run by a crop of dunder-head JO's who wouldn't be able to distinguish their heads from their ____es with two hands and a flashlight. If the right hand was talking to the left (pun intended) then we could have addressed this long ago. Instead we got a storm of bogus lending from mortgage orignators who had no intention of holding the loans they wrote selling those bads deals to underwritings, then they cleared those bad deals with lawyers and accountants and passed them onto ratings agencies, which in turn could not dicepher what the heck they were rating smacking the stamp of approval of them, then selling them off to fund managers who then sold them off to banks which didn't know what the heck they were really buying but they knew the yield looked nice. When in fact some of those bad deals were issued by the same banks that were buying them back in the end rendering themselves doubly exposed to the risk. Which lead to the purchase of over the counter CDS and the mess just kept getting bigger. In the end everybody took their cut and the people who owned their homes fair and straight with no debt or no bad investments get to feel the same pain the irresponsible folks feel. I'm oversimplifying it really but this whole thing was one giant mess. You don't think solid, well thought out, commonsense, and might I add effective and targeted regulations would have prevented this? Or at least lessened the frequency?
At this point one can't dicepher what part of the current economic situation is related to the mortgage mess and what part is related to just the regular business cycle. A recession was inevitable bubbles burst but this is ridiculous.

Santana4Prez'08
11-17-2008, 04:59 PM
well, just to point out that obama won't help our economic situation.
i wanna change the topic.
how is he going to help our economic situation?
businesses are just going to tax their items and raise the costs even more if they're taxed more, the middle class won't get more money and the struggles there will still keep going. this will cause inflation.
how is obama gonna cut taxes if he's instituting all of these policies and hurting businesses even more. they're dying already, he's just adding fuel to the fire.

ari1013
11-17-2008, 05:35 PM
well, just to point out that obama won't help our economic situation.
i wanna change the topic.
how is he going to help our economic situation?
businesses are just going to tax their items and raise the costs even more if they're taxed more, the middle class won't get more money and the struggles there will still keep going. this will cause inflation.
how is obama gonna cut taxes if he's instituting all of these policies and hurting businesses even more. they're dying already, he's just adding fuel to the fire.
impeachment time, huh?

Seppuku
11-17-2008, 07:05 PM
well, just to point out that obama won't help our economic situation.
i wanna change the topic.
how is he going to help our economic situation?
businesses are just going to tax their items and raise the costs even more if they're taxed more, the middle class won't get more money and the struggles there will still keep going. this will cause inflation.
how is obama gonna cut taxes if he's instituting all of these policies and hurting businesses even more. they're dying already, he's just adding fuel to the fire.

A lot depends on attitude and approach. Our current method isn't working. It hasn't worked any time we have used it in the past 30 years. There are also some pretty broad sweeping generalities going on here. We can reverse them. Obama is going to help the economic situation. Lowered taxes on the struggling middle class means they have more money that they can use to pay off debt or continue getting their normal consumables rather than cutting back. Business will have more income due to the increased spending and tax coffers for the Gov will be filled due to more money circulation. Less middle class family failure means less foreclosures and less bad debt having to be soaked up by the rest of us, stabilizing the banks and allowing for more lending. It also removes potential burden from social programs as the government is not spending as much on food stamps and subsidized housing. Everyone wins! See how easy that is?

Santana4Prez'08
11-17-2008, 08:08 PM
A lot depends on attitude and approach. Our current method isn't working. It hasn't worked any time we have used it in the past 30 years. There are also some pretty broad sweeping generalities going on here. We can reverse them. Obama is going to help the economic situation. Lowered taxes on the struggling middle class means they have more money that they can use to pay off debt or continue getting their normal consumables rather than cutting back. Business will have more income due to the increased spending and tax coffers for the Gov will be filled due to more money circulation. Less middle class family failure means less foreclosures and less bad debt having to be soaked up by the rest of us, stabilizing the banks and allowing for more lending. It also removes potential burden from social programs as the government is not spending as much on food stamps and subsidized housing. Everyone wins! See how easy that is?

ok, if businesses are taxed heavily, they are going to increases their prices. also, the fact that he's going to put all of the financial burden on 5% of the people basically isn't right and fair. 40% of the other 95% of the other people who are under the $250,000 (or whatever obama feels is necessary that day, the number has been going lower and lower) don't pay taxes, and they are going to get a welfare check. also, a lot of non tax payers are unemployed people who live off of welfare, and have been for a very long time. welfare is supposed to be a temporary thing, not a lifetime thing. a keynote on obama's policy, yes taxes will supposedly go down, but, how are taxes going to go down with a. no immediate end in iraq and b. 1 trillion dollars in new spending.

i know i'm going on a rant, but i have one more thing to say. if the upper class is basically going to be paying for everyone, many middle/lower class people are going to see this and the fact that the government will take care of them. why would they work, heck, if the government would basically take care of me, i wouldn't work. think about it, increased welfare spending, medical insurance, food stamps, and every other thing. how in the **** are things going to be done if man people aren't working because the government takes care of them while the upper class does important things and has to pay even more money than they do already? THEY PAY 70% OF ALL TAXES ALREADY, THATS ASTRONOMICAL.
:speechless:

if things don't get done in the middle/lower class and they don't put money into the government, our economy will fail worse than it already has. i don't agree with what bush has done, but is sure of a hell lot better than obama's radical and socialist ideas.:(

Seppuku
11-18-2008, 12:22 AM
ok, if businesses are taxed heavily, they are going to increases their prices. also, the fact that he's going to put all of the financial burden on 5% of the people basically isn't right and fair. 40% of the other 95% of the other people who are under the $250,000 (or whatever obama feels is necessary that day, the number has been going lower and lower) don't pay taxes, and they are going to get a welfare check. also, a lot of non tax payers are unemployed people who live off of welfare, and have been for a very long time. welfare is supposed to be a temporary thing, not a lifetime thing. a keynote on obama's policy, yes taxes will supposedly go down, but, how are taxes going to go down with a. no immediate end in iraq and b. 1 trillion dollars in new spending.

i know i'm going on a rant, but i have one more thing to say. if the upper class is basically going to be paying for everyone, many middle/lower class people are going to see this and the fact that the government will take care of them. why would they work, heck, if the government would basically take care of me, i wouldn't work. think about it, increased welfare spending, medical insurance, food stamps, and every other thing. how in the **** are things going to be done if man people aren't working because the government takes care of them while the upper class does important things and has to pay even more money than they do already? THEY PAY 70% OF ALL TAXES ALREADY, THATS ASTRONOMICAL.
:speechless:

if things don't get done in the middle/lower class and they don't put money into the government, our economy will fail worse than it already has. i don't agree with what bush has done, but is sure of a hell lot better than obama's radical and socialist ideas.:(

I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. I don't know anyone who would give up a good paying job to go live in subsidized housing and downgrade everything you have in life. You are talking about helping people out who are struggling to stay away from the disaster that you are proclaiming everyone will strive for. That is really sad expectations for the human race. Are you saying that you would chose a bleak existence of poverty and handouts over working to have a decent home, being able to feed your family in a decent manner and securing a decent future? I doubt many people would choose that humiliation if they could avoid it.

I sense that you feel panic over the tax increase that is going to impact businesses. Seems like an over-reaction of doom and gloom for what is really going to be a very minor change. As Obama was explaining to Joe the Plumber (something that got blown way out of proportion), for the middle class to buy a plumbers services, they must have the money to spend. If the economy is bad enough that they cannot afford the costs of the plumber, the plumber doesn't get paid, and now the plumber is suffering because people can't afford to hire him. The plumber becomes the next link in the chain who can't afford to pay the next business for services down the line, say the parts supplier. Now the parts supplier has to cut back because plumbers aren't buying parts because the middle class can't afford to hire them. Now the parts supplier can't pay the manufacturer because the plumber can't afford to buy the parts because the middle class can't afford to hire the plumber. So the manufacturer now has to cut back and can't purchase from the resource manager. Why? Because the manufacturer isn't getting orders from the parts suppliers because the parts suppliers aren't selling parts to the plumbers because the plumbers aren't being hired by the middle class. All because the middle class is shouldering too much of the tax burden. Give the middle class the tax break and that money got used by 5 different levels, thus spreading the wealth.

What? Wait! That's what the spreading the wealth comment was about? Sheesh, you would have thought that the GOP wouldn't have misrepresented it like that. Guess what? You got suckered by the GOP spin machine again.

What is funny is that each time that money changes hands, the government gets a cut. Thus much more tax revenue. Little changes in tax policy and change in mindset makes for big change.

Santana4Prez'08
11-18-2008, 09:17 PM
I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. I don't know anyone who would give up a good paying job to go live in subsidized housing and downgrade everything you have in life. You are talking about helping people out who are struggling to stay away from the disaster that you are proclaiming everyone will strive for. That is really sad expectations for the human race. Are you saying that you would chose a bleak existence of poverty and handouts over working to have a decent home, being able to feed your family in a decent manner and securing a decent future? I doubt many people would choose that humiliation if they could avoid it.

I sense that you feel panic over the tax increase that is going to impact businesses. Seems like an over-reaction of doom and gloom for what is really going to be a very minor change. As Obama was explaining to Joe the Plumber (something that got blown way out of proportion), for the middle class to buy a plumbers services, they must have the money to spend. If the economy is bad enough that they cannot afford the costs of the plumber, the plumber doesn't get paid, and now the plumber is suffering because people can't afford to hire him. The plumber becomes the next link in the chain who can't afford to pay the next business for services down the line, say the parts supplier. Now the parts supplier has to cut back because plumbers aren't buying parts because the middle class can't afford to hire them. Now the parts supplier can't pay the manufacturer because the plumber can't afford to buy the parts because the middle class can't afford to hire the plumber. So the manufacturer now has to cut back and can't purchase from the resource manager. Why? Because the manufacturer isn't getting orders from the parts suppliers because the parts suppliers aren't selling parts to the plumbers because the plumbers aren't being hired by the middle class. All because the middle class is shouldering too much of the tax burden. Give the middle class the tax break and that money got used by 5 different levels, thus spreading the wealth.

What? Wait! That's what the spreading the wealth comment was about? Sheesh, you would have thought that the GOP wouldn't have misrepresented it like that. Guess what? You got suckered by the GOP spin machine again.

What is funny is that each time that money changes hands, the government gets a cut. Thus much more tax revenue. Little changes in tax policy and change in mindset makes for big change.

now here's the problem
i'm not talking about fortunate people who have good jobs, i'm talking about many middle to lower class people with average and poor jobs that don't pay very well. many people who have lesser roles in small businesses, janitors, and plumbers since you brought it up. people like this don't get paid so well and most of the time, struggle to get by. if the government, which it will, offer more money in federal programs than these people get paid, they would not work. many people live off of the government, don't work, and have kids. this isn't fair to taxpayers to pay for people like this, if anything, this makes people wants to live off of the government more.

also, the idea of "spreading the wealth around" is socialist. obama's views are extremely liberal and sometimes socialist. spreading the wealth around is a part of socialism to create an economic equilibrium, which is completely stupid. obama's ideals will kill capitals, hence, the end of big businesses to help people who don't pay taxes and live off of the government already. how would you feel if you worked hard and had to pay half of your paycheck to the government to pay for these programs. it makes me sick honestly, welfare is supposed to be a temporary thing, not a lifetime thing, just like how it is abused to say. and if you want to make the argument that obama doesn't have any socialist ideas, then why does he support a socialist. obama's judgement really killed him in my eyes, yet, people don't care because he says the, now cliche, word change. if bush didn't do a bad job as president, mccain would have won.

ari1013
11-19-2008, 10:41 AM
Obama's economic ideas are much closer to that of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan than they are to Sweden and Finland. Ford and Reagan created the EITC -- which is Obama's "spread the wealth" forum.

The election's over. It's time to come to grips with it. If you don't like what he's doing, talk about that. But don't just regurgitate failed fear-mongering talking points.

Here's a little checklist for you on what Obama's done so far:
1. Named some cabinet members.
2. Issued a statement on environmentalism.
3. Issued a statement on the auto-industry.
4. Attempted to bolster the Democratic advantage in Congress by retaining Lieberman.

That's about it so far. I'll keep you posted.

Seppuku
11-19-2008, 11:07 AM
Obama's economic ideas are much closer to that of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan than they are to Sweden and Finland. Ford and Reagan created the EITC -- which is Obama's "spread the wealth" forum.

The election's over. It's time to come to grips with it. If you don't like what he's doing, talk about that. But don't just regurgitate failed fear-mongering talking points.

Here's a little checklist for you on what Obama's done so far:
1. Named some cabinet members.
2. Issued a statement on environmentalism.
3. Issued a statement on the auto-industry.
4. Attempted to bolster the Democratic advantage in Congress by retaining Lieberman.

That's about it so far. I'll keep you posted.

Yes, it came across that way. Lots of fear mongering exaggerations that look nothing like what is going on, especially considering that Obama is still only president elect. At least he mentioned that he believes Bush did a bad job as president, whatever that is worth.

ari1013
11-19-2008, 01:29 PM
Yes, it came across that way. Lots of fear mongering exaggerations that look nothing like what is going on, especially considering that Obama is still only president elect. At least he mentioned that he believes Bush did a bad job as president, whatever that is worth.
Isn't the in-thing today to dump on Bush if you're a Republican? It's a little cliche for a Democrat to do it, but it's fair game for the GOP.

ink
11-19-2008, 01:35 PM
Yes, it came across that way. Lots of fear mongering exaggerations that look nothing like what is going on, especially considering that Obama is still only president elect.

It's been hard for the "hate train" to come to a stop after the election. That's the danger of running an almost entirely negative campaign like the McCain camp did. Look at poor Palin, even she can't stop.

gcoll
11-19-2008, 01:43 PM
It's been hard for the "hate train" to come to a stop after the election. That's the danger of running an almost entirely negative campaign like the McCain camp did. Look at poor Palin, even she can't stop.

You chastise the other side for not letting up....but the campaign is over. You can ease up on Mccain.

What has Palin said that was hateful?

ink
11-19-2008, 01:47 PM
You chastise the other side for not letting up....but the campaign is over. You can ease up on Mccain.

Notice that I said McCain campaign, because I don't think it's all his fault. The whole campaign was extremely negative and contentious and I can't completely believe that he liked the way he ran. The difference is that the "hate train" got into the habit of inventing and manufacturing phony issues rather than talking about policy and ideas. Now it's hard for the habit to die. People got sucked into it and they want to keep on with the crazy "nazi", "socialist", "terrorist" threads.

edit in: about Palin, you have to be kidding.

gcoll
11-19-2008, 01:58 PM
The difference is that the "hate train" got into the habit of inventing and manufacturing phony issues rather than talking about policy and ideas.
Like I've said to you numerous times. That's what politics is.

As far as the "hate train" goes, do you think it is worse this year, than it has been in the past 2 elections? Or for that matter...is the tone of this hate train, any worse than the tone of the political discourse over the past 8 years?


edit in: about Palin, you have to be kidding.
No. I haven't been paying attention to what she's been saying. I don't know what she has said that could be considered controversial, let alone "hate filled"

ink
11-19-2008, 02:06 PM
Like I've said to you numerous times. That's what politics is.

Since we've already done that and still disagree let's not get into that again.


As far as the "hate train" goes, do you think it is worse this year, than it has been in the past 2 elections? Or for that matter...is the tone of this hate train, any worse than the tone of the political discourse over the past 8 years?

It's definitely become stupider. Everything from Joe the Plumber to "palling around with terrorists" to "he said it sounds to me like (insert horror SFX here) socialism" ... it's definitely a new low.

Seppuku
11-19-2008, 02:06 PM
Isn't the in-thing today to dump on Bush if you're a Republican? It's a little cliche for a Democrat to do it, but it's fair game for the GOP.

Admitting that you have a problem is the first step to recovery?

gcoll
11-19-2008, 02:10 PM
It's definitely become stupider. Everything from Joe the Plumber to "palling around with terrorists" to "he said it sounds to me like (insert horror SFX here) socialism" ... it's definitely a new low.
Socialism is a new low? Then I have been going to a new low for quite a while now, because I've been accusing liberals of socialism since the 8th grade. I'm not about to stop now either. Especially with the government about to bail out the auto makers. Hell, a whole lot of conservatives have been preaching socialist ideas as well. Look at what Mccain's health care policy was.

About the "palling around with terrorists" thing. Like I've said. The Obama supporters get upset because people suggested that Obama pals around with terrorists.

They sell bumper stickers calling GW a terrorist.

If anything, the tone of the campaign was a step up from the general tone of politics over the past 8 years.

BroadwayJoe
11-19-2008, 02:13 PM
About the "palling around with terrorists" thing. Like I've said. The Obama supporters get upset because people suggested that Obama pals around with terrorists.

They sell bumper stickers calling GW a terrorist.

there is a distinct difference between an official campaign issuing these statements and an independent merchant selling his slogans on bumper stickers.

ink
11-19-2008, 02:13 PM
Socialism is a new low? Then I have been going to a new low for quite a while now, because I've been accusing liberals of socialism since the 8th grade. I'm not about to stop now either. Especially with the government about to bail out the auto makers. Hell, a whole lot of conservatives have been preaching socialist ideas as well. Look at what Mccain's health care policy was.

About the "palling around with terrorists" thing. Like I've said. The Obama supporters get upset because people suggested that Obama pals around with terrorists.

They sell bumper stickers calling GW a terrorist.

If anything, the tone of the campaign was a step up from the general tone of politics over the past 8 years.

I guess we have no common ground to have a discussion on.


there is a distinct difference between an official campaign issuing these statements and an independent merchant selling his slogans on bumper stickers.

Good point.

gcoll
11-19-2008, 02:19 PM
there is a distinct difference between an official campaign issuing these statements and an independent merchant selling his slogans on bumper stickers.

True. But I'm talking about the overall political discourse. It goes beyond campaign ads.

And again..not to drudge up the past. But I can list off a handful of unwarranted attacks against Mccain over the course of the campaign, which did originate from the Obama campaign. But that is inconsequential.

But I'm talking about the past 8 years. The amount of personal attacks that were levied at GW over the past 8 years, likely won't be paralleled any time soon. Some would say "rightfully so"...but this is a guy who was called almost every name in the book. Obama supporters have no right to complain, when it was their side who have been extremely dirty for quite a while now.

BroadwayJoe
11-19-2008, 02:27 PM
True. But I'm talking about the overall political discourse. It goes beyond campaign ads.

And again..not to drudge up the past. But I can list off a handful of unwarranted attacks against Mccain over the course of the campaign, which did originate from the Obama campaign. But that is inconsequential.

But I'm talking about the past 8 years. The amount of personal attacks that were levied at GW over the past 8 years, likely won't be paralleled any time soon. Some would say "rightfully so"...but this is a guy who was called almost every name in the book. Obama supporters have no right to complain, when it was their side who have been extremely dirty for quite a while now.

you can say it's inconsequential, but there IS a huge difference between officials spouting off this nonsense and staunch supporters doing the same. neither is right, but one HAS to be held more accountable for the integrity of our system. there is no way to monitor and control individuals speaking their mind - warranted or not. there is, however, a modicum of excellence and integrity we EXPECT from our elected officials. when they stoop to the level of hotheads and rumor-mongers, they've essentially eroded the value of their own message by saying "don't worry about facts and things like that are meant to help progress our country and our lives... we'll just resort to throwing stones and hope we hit a big enough window to shatter the other side's chances." that is neither beneficial for the country as a whole, nor is it something that we can all rally behind (unless you're an extremist nut who prefers a split, nonconstructive nation as opposed to a semi-united country working towards the betterment of everyone).

of course, the argument could be made that gov officials have no integrity to begin with... bunch of dirty liars! :D

gcoll
11-19-2008, 02:32 PM
but there IS a huge difference between officials spouting off this nonsense and staunch supporters doing the same
Yes. There is. I never disagreed with you. I said that the Obama attacks on Mccain were inconsequential to the point I was making.


but one HAS to be held more accountable for the integrity of our system.
While not directly from the Obama camp...if you want, I can drudge up the words of democratic officials over the past 8 years if you like.


And about the rest of your post. Yeah, that is stuff I would agree with.

BroadwayJoe
11-19-2008, 02:43 PM
Yes. There is. I never disagreed with you. I said that the Obama attacks on Mccain were inconsequential to the point I was making.


While not directly from the Obama camp...if you want, I can drudge up the words of democratic officials over the past 8 years if you like.


And about the rest of your post. Yeah, that is stuff I would agree with.

i've never agreed with dem officials openly saying things like that. it's one thing to disagree with the pres but when the pelosis of the world start spewing invective, it does nothing but drive a wedge between left and right. that accomplishes nothing.

as for the obama campaign, i've found that most of the "negative" stuff spread about mccain (officially) was more factual than baseless claims like "socialist" or "terrorist pal." openly saying that mccain's economic position is weak holds ground since mccain, himself, openly said economics wasn't his strong suit.

lilboytwister99
11-20-2008, 08:26 PM
Ya know I thought I would share this interesting story. I was on my way home with my friend from work. He had to stop on the way to pick up his brother. Well he pulled in front of this office building, and quickly ran inside to go get his brother. Well he parked behind a few parked cars, and one of them (a van) had his lights on. I quickly honked the horn and got out to apologize to the man. He and I started talking, and he was telling me stories of when he worked for Shell (27 years) and how he got laid off because the price of oil dropped like it is doing right now. He said he was from London, England and was a geologist. He had apparently served in the Middle East, and all of Europe, before getting shipped here. What he told me was actually very interesting.

He said the people of the Middle East are liars. He said the mother lies to the daughter, as the father lies to the son. He said the same of our government (which I cant say I disagree since IMO they're responsible for a big part of this recession). He said he traveled to England about 4 months ago and paid $12.50 a gallon for gas. Holy crap.

I told him what I thought was going to happen with this whole bailout plan (which Ive thought all along should have been put on the election ballot and voted on by the citizens of our country) and how I thought we were heading straight for a depression. He said "ya know what I see coming out of this? A third world war". The scary thing is, he might be right.

I just think its interesting to me to hear from people not originally from this country and hear their thoughts and all. Its amazing because come tomorrow, this whole country could go straight down the tube. I think the big 3 motor vehicle companies will all go bankrupt, sending millions home without jobs. This, will ultimately lead to a second great depression.

I just hope and pray that Bush leaves something left of this country so that Obama can come in and at least try to turn it around. MY theory, though, is that by the time Obama gets in office, it might be too late to do anything about the economy. I really fear this.

Good night folks.

ari1013
11-21-2008, 11:25 PM
Yup all of us born in the Middle East are born with this thing that just forces us to lie. We can't help it. It's like our mouths are disconnected from our brains.

Oh wait, there I go again.

Santana4Prez'08
11-22-2008, 11:57 AM
we just need honesty, and i don't get that vibe from obama.
and as a republican, bush did do a pretty bad job in office.
but you can't just blame him like people do.
congress, and the senate have very low approval ratings as well, and they have a democratic majority. i think we need a new political party to ensure honesty in government.

ari1013
11-22-2008, 12:21 PM
we just need honesty, and i don't get that vibe from obama.
and as a republican, bush did do a pretty bad job in office.
but you can't just blame him like people do.
congress, and the senate have very low approval ratings as well, and they have a democratic majority. i think we need a new political party to ensure honesty in government.
Congress has a low approval rating for not having a backbone to stand up to Bush.

Congressional Dems received an aggregate vote from 54% of America. That's better than Obama received.

Santana4Prez'08
11-22-2008, 09:23 PM
Congress has a low approval rating for not having a backbone to stand up to Bush.

Congressional Dems received an aggregate vote from 54% of America. That's better than Obama received.

no because they make stupid decisions.

ari1013
11-22-2008, 09:30 PM
no because they make stupid decisions.
...Like not standing up to Bush.

Even so, getting an aggregate 54% of the vote says something.

Nearly a 100 seat lead in the House
Nearly a 20 seat lead in the Senate

They've gotta be doing something right.

lilboytwister99
11-23-2008, 12:09 PM
Yup all of us born in the Middle East are born with this thing that just forces us to lie. We can't help it. It's like our mouths are disconnected from our brains.

Oh wait, there I go again.

lol, just for the record, I agreed about our government being liars, not necessarily the Middle Easterns. Keep in mind also that this whole conversation was with a man from London. He had more to say, which I had left out, but cant frickin remember what he said now. I mean I can recall him saying how the Middle Eastern people wanted the price of oil to get as high as possible with no regards (something along those lines). I left that part out because I didnt want anyone offended. He kept rambling on, and I just sat there like "yeah, uh huh, oh really, oh cool, yeah, ok, i gotcha" etc.

So no hate on my part. Just so ya know.

What a day..... later yall!

Santana4Prez'08
11-23-2008, 08:22 PM
...Like not standing up to Bush.

Even so, getting an aggregate 54% of the vote says something.

Nearly a 100 seat lead in the House
Nearly a 20 seat lead in the Senate

They've gotta be doing something right.

they are just a differerent party than bush
i don't like bush, he did an awful job
but
so did everybody else, republican and democrat