obama the hypocrite

[DarkWing6]

Read more about redistribution and economics and get back to me. (Rawls vs. Nozick)

Do you really think the nation will succeed on the basis of intrinsic desire for success if needs are provided for?

How do you think the economy would be fairing if a democrat was in charge instead of Bush? Government spending programs to help people deal with lost jobs or lower GDP instead of economic stimulus plan... yeah, that would have been great. Stagflation all over again, yay!

yay! a thread where we agree. :D

[Pac0]

Well, I guess I just have this real neutral feeling about her. I feel that she is totally qualified for the job, that she truly wants it. She's not trying to be this lofty intellectual who thinks she has it all figured out. I feel that Obama is riding solely on the support of impressionable college freshman, African-Americans, and anti-Bush sentiment.

I think McCain is a good guy. I like how comfortable on camera (hosted SNL), and I like how straight forward he is. But, he just seems unprepared, and tired. There's just something about his judgement that I don't trust.

I don't like Hillary's support of gay marriage, but whatever I guess. What concerns me the most is that the country move forward. It has been 200 years and we have never had a female president (granted the first 100 years didn't have a chance); we've never even had a female run for the position. In fact, we have only had one imaginary woman president, Gina Davis. When it comes to that, our country is way behind on having females in a true leadership position. I know Germany is led by a woman (called a chancelor?), and there are a number of other countries that i forget, but you might find surprising are being led by women. It has nothing at all to do with men vs. women, but more about politics in America progressing, and I think that sort of progression will pull us out of the rut America seems to be in. It's not about her beating the odds or any sort of Disney-like inspiration for women across the US. It's just about having something dramatically new. That will undoubtably wear off when we all get used to her as president, but I think it will last longer than Obama's plans for a utopia and McCain's... whatever the heck a psuedorepublican plans are.

It does bother me, however, when she seems to dodge questions. If Edwards was still in the running, he'd probably have my vote.

So you're pro-advancement of women (a "minority" in society in that they are still not on a level playing field with men) and against gay marriage?

[Ray McCooney]

Now if only Senator Obama were a "Black American"......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_KKyw8V-l0

Oh, and....

When people think, democrats win. Bill Clinton.

Tis' a shame that so many individuals, both Republican and Democrat, did not possess the ability to think when Former President Reagan decisively and overwhelmingly won two terms based on their support. Must have been extremely difficult to carry 44 states during the first election and 49 states during the second election with a base of support that was not capable of thinking......


However, I do fully support the re-emergence of teh boobies in Off Topic. Go team R3V.

[Hallen]

The thing is, someone is always going to misinterpret your words, especially when dealing with controversial topics, such as race. It's like when Will Smith said that "Hitler thought what he was doing was a good thing." People then began to call Will a Nazi and all sorts of things.

When talking about race, everyone is going to find something to get offended about. It shows a lot of bravery on Obama's part to even think about discussing race relations when there is so much on the line. I think that he was being as sincere as possible, and that he was trying to bring us together, by providing real prospectives of people(which is controversial at times). To even begin to insinuate that he's racist or whatnot is ludicrous to me. He was raised by a white mother for crying out loud.

I think that people are being way too paranoid calling him the next Carl Marx. Why is a little government intervention so bad? All of the times we were without it, people were being exploited horribly (hard to argue with the history books, and hey, how does that saying go? History repeats itself?). Our country is based on giving everyone a fair shot at life, and how is this being done by providing tax cuts to wealthy people? Yes, "they provide jobs, new businesses. this theory is proven by scholars" .. but look at our economy right now. It is doing terribly, and our deficit is increasing monumentally everyday, under a CONSERVATIVE president. I find it funny that we're somehow supposed to gain prosperity by doing the same things. The war on Iraq is costs us billions and ultimately hurting Americans (how unpatriotic).

Anyway, I'm the minority here, so obviously I'm going to get raped.
I'm just saying how I feel.

You are not going to get "raped" because you are in the perceived minority here. You may get your convictions seriously questioned though. The best thing to do will be to take a close look at your assumptions and then do some real research.

People do get exploited and have been exploited by business in the past and probably will in the future. However, most businesses that survive in the long term have gotten past most of that and have learned that exploiting workers does not work in the long term. Taking care of people does work.

There is no such thing as "a little" government intervention. Either they intervien or they do not. We live by the rule of law. Businesses also "live" by the rule of law. There are penalties and punishments for people who lead businesses who break the law.

Unfortunately, because of knee jerk reactions by ignorant politicians, we get things like the Sarbanes Oxley law that came about because of the Enron fiasco. SOx is a stupid, ill-conceived, intrusive and largely ineffective law that costs businesses billions of dollars every year. That money can't go to the employees who deserve it in the form of promotions and pay raises. It can't be used for development of new products and services. It just gets spent to produce more documentation on stuff that was already documented and poor more money into auditing firms. This was supposedly done to "protect" investors. This is how government "helps" business.

But the real deal is this: Government should only provide 3 things.

1) Provide for the defense of the country
2) Provide for the protection of the citizens (police, the rule of law)
3) Provide for the common good.

#3 is what gets us in trouble. It is meant to cover things like street lights that benefit us all and really can't be provided by a private organization or things like the space program that really can't possibly be funded by a private organization. It does not mean to intervene in business. It does not mean that government should wipe your fanny for you. It does not mean that the government should provide you with health care.

The economy is just fine, thank you. Your perception is that it is falling apart and that it will never recover if the government does not help out. That is what politicians (mostly democrat) want you to think. It simply is not true. The economy is fine and will recover all on its own. It is totally normal.

George Bush really is not a conservative President. He is pretty weak and has been severely damaged by mishandling of Iraq from a communications position, not an operational one, and the frenzied media's desire to convince the people that something is wrong where it isn't.

Obama has a long way to go to convince people that he is not a hypocrite. He says he wants to bring people together. But what he is really saying is that he wants people to agree with him when he says that things are not "equal or fair" out there. The whole proposition that it is not fair out there is ludicrous. The black man born in the inner city has exactly the same rights, privileges and possibilities as the white man born on the farm in Eastern Oregon. It is all up to the individual to make something of it. There is nothing that government can do to "level the field". All the government can do is bring us all down to the level of the lowest common denominator and there is where we will stay. That is a crime for all people, no matter what color, all over America because it kills the American dream for all of us.

[DarkWing6]

Good work Hallen!

Some of your SOX stuff I don't agree with. I agree that it is poorly formed and our gov't shouldn't be a part of business, but it has helped create some trust in our stock market that was damaged after Enron. It could have been done much better, but it has helped stregthen the stock market. We have to live in the place we are in and that helped at the time.

[Hallen]

My point on the SOx stuff was that it was unnecessary. We already have laws that deal with criminals like the leaders of Enron. The only reason investors needed bolstering was because the media kept playing up the "victims" in the case and were looking hard for somebody to blame for not protecting them. The simple truth was that these people were victims of a crime. Those responsible were prosecuted and punished. What more can you do?

The reporting rules under SOx greatly hamper businesses in their ability to sell product efficiently. The SOx rules do not preclude an Enron type of thing from happening again. If the company management is intent on committing a crime, they will be able to do it, with our without SOx. So in that way, SOx is basically worthless.

I feel bad for all the people who got screwed by Enron and the other companies. But, investing in the stock market is a risk. If a stock looks too good to be true, it probably is not true. The media was too quick to point at all business and imply that they are all just like Enron (corporations are Evil, don't ya know?). That is why the uproar happened that the politicians capitalized on.

[E30 Wagen]

So you're pro-advancement of women (a "minority" in society in that they are still not on a level playing field with men) and against gay marriage?

In short, the issue isn't minorities. It's about a dramatic change in leadership. She may only be a regarded as a figure head, but I nevertheless feel that such a dramatic change is important for our country, not necessarily for women's rights.

I'm actually not as liberal as some of you might think. If I learned anything from my absolutely brilliant political science professor, it's that neither party has the best plan for everything. Switching between republican and democrat every and now and then is a good thing, especially after Bush's spectacular work in foreign relations... I, along with much of the country, simply feel it's the democrat's turn. I support Hillary for the above reasons and also because I just don't think Obama has what it takes.

I was for Bush back in 2000. In 2012, i might be swinging republican again. Who knows?! :hitler: I don't plan on seeing the year 2009, though, becuase fuck all of it, everything, i fucking hate it all and i don't want to look at it anymore
/emo

[MattE30]

Stagflation all over again, yay!

Like what's happening now?

[rwh11385]

Like what's happening now?

There's no double digit inflation...
and no double digit unemployment...

but the fed is acting pretty silly.