DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on April 14, 2008, 10:44:21 AM
-
(http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/images/interface/headers/cm-logo-footer.jpg)
It's All Gone
Abe Greenwald - 04.13.2008 - 6:59 PM
The radiant charm; the verbal agility; the promise of change; the post-racial unity; the deferential press; and most importantly, the vagueness of character and intent that sustained the whole facade. These were the hallmarks of Barack Obama's run for the Democratic nomination, and bit-by-bit, associate-by-associate, gaffe-by-gaffe, the junior senator from Illinois has given all of it back. The extraordinary bounty that had made his campaign a nearly unstoppable force of nature is gone.
With last Sunday's revelationthat he looks at smalltown America and finds armed, hate-filled, irredentist religious zealots the last piece of the Obama puzzle fell into place. He is not, it turns out, an agent of change; he is a walking checklist of modern liberal inanities. Big government: check. Crippling taxes: check. Arrogance: check. Identity divisiveness: check. Moral superiority: check. Softness on enemies: check. Shakiness on Israel: check. Questionable patriotism: check.
Half a year ago, the formula for a serious journalistic portrait of Barack Obama was as follows: one extra long cosmetic description, one detailed childhood recap, some praise for his efforts as a memoirist, and a closing discussion of a nation poised for change. No one knew enough about the man's politics to delve further. However, in the course of a few months he has created a resume of mistakes that's left the content of those early articles looking as relevant as the lines on a printer test. Today's Obama portrait is of a man embattled, a candidate whose repeatedly faulty judgment demands explanation.
Yet, the math is the math is the math, and as we know the superdelegates are his to lose. While they may now realize they've thrown in their lot with the dazzling candidate from a few months ago, turning their backs on the candidate who can't stop fumbling today could cause a scandal one perhaps even bigger than the scandals repeatedly served up by Hillary and Obama. However, it's a scandal the party leadership may decide to weather, because the man who has at last filled out the empty suit has turned out to be very very beatable.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/3337 (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/3337)
-
The elitist meme is a straw man.
On the face of it, his comments though impolitic, ring true.
In times of trouble, we do cling to foundational beliefs and close ranks against others.
Humans are tribal after all.
-
I tend to agree with Bt. I'm sure Obama is sincere in what he said....just that he didn't guage how PiC they were, thus his redirection on how he should have phrased them better.
-
Ring true?
What you're seeing with Obama is what we see in here on a regular basis. The left throws out platitudes to the average man and woman while in private they despise them for their ignorance, belief in God, and reliance on something other than government and the good graces of liberals for their daily bread. As I said, we see it here. The attacks on the south and it's citizens. The ridicule of religious believers. Obama has unwittingly given us a glimpse into what he really thinks about all those redneck racists out there who are stupid enough to vote for him.
A uniter doesn't throw his grandmother under the bus, nor does he look down his nose at the people he intends to unite.
-
all i know is i am sending money to:
http://hillaryclinton.com/hq/pennsylvania/?sc= (http://hillaryclinton.com/hq/pennsylvania/?sc=)
(https://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/13614/2/www.palmcoastd.com/ows-img/rushstore/products/OCSHIRT350x200.jpg)
-
"Shakiness on Israel" Finally. Israel is a beggar nation that has caused us far more problems than any conceivable good it has done us.
Obama is right on the money about how out of work smalltown people cling to their fundie religions and guns as though they would bring salvation. I went to HS with such people, and my hometown is now a rather prosperous suburb and is not nearly so dead-end a place as some that are further away from a large city.
Perhaps he should not have said it. He did not say this for public consumption, after all. But it IS TRUE.
Neither guns not fundie Christianity will create jobs of prosperity in such places, and take up a lot of time that could be spent in more useful activities that might do so.
-
>>Obama is right on the money about how out of work smalltown people cling to their fundie religions and guns as though they would bring salvation. I went to HS with such people and my hometown is now a rather prosperous suburb and is not nearly so dead-end a place as some that are further away from a large city.<<
For some reason I'm guessing X wasn't president of his class.
But here's more proof of what I said earlier. It's typical of liberals to feel superior to others and look down their noses at people. X has written his bigotry down for the internet to see. I couldn't have written it better myself. It's the bigotry and hate that's at the heart of liberalism. Obama is no different than X in this regard.
-
all i know is i am sending money to:
http://hillaryclinton.com/hq/pennsylvania/?sc= (http://hillaryclinton.com/hq/pennsylvania/?sc=)
(https://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/13614/2/www.palmcoastd.com/ows-img/rushstore/products/OCSHIRT350x200.jpg)
Careful CU4, sometimes you get exactly what you ask for - President John McCain...
-
I'm definately not thrilled with that prospect. But given the egregiously worse alternatives, it's the best we can hope for at this juncture.
-
I'm definately not thrilled with that prospect. But given the egregiously worse alternatives, it's the best we can hope for at this juncture.
Aren't you responsible for the actions of the person you elect into office?
-
Aren't you responsible for the actions of the person you elect into office?
no
-
Why do you care?
What is McCain doing these days?
-
Aren't you responsible for the actions of the person you elect into office?
no
So, in a democracy, you aren't responsible for making an informed decision? You could vote in a former Dixiecrat and then be astonished when he says something blatantly racist?
-
Obama is right.
-
If you voted for him because you knew he was a racist, then yes, you are responsible. If you voted for Bill Clinton you aren't responsible for his adultery. Unless of course you knew he was an adulterer before you voted for him.
(http://www.davidstuff.com/political/flowers.jpg)
-
It's typical of liberals to feel superior to others and look down their noses at people. X has written his bigotry down for the internet to see.
==================================================================
I tend to look down my nose at people who believe in the Tooth Fairy or that if you make an ugly face, God will "freeze" it like that forever.
Many people have silly beliefs. It is not bigotry to observe that people have such silly beliefs. You can believe that an aspirin in a bottle of Coca-Cola will make you high, but after trying it and observing that it does no such thing, a smarter person passes off such folk beliefs as useless.
If there are no jobs in a mining town after the mine runs out of ore, you coule take up hunting and perhaps save a bit on the food bill, but praying for Jesus to bring back the mine is quite unlikely to make anything positive happen. I suppose if everyone gets together at church to pray for this, and they all bring a covered dish, the food that people can afford might be more equitably distributed, but the chances that hunting and prayer will restore a once-prosperous mining town to its past glory are pretty slim. To point this out is in no way bigoted, it is just a factual observation.
Flint Michigan was once a prosperous and thriving manufacturing town, but then GM closed one factory after another and those who have not left are not prospering at all any longer. No amount of hunting or Jesus will restore Flint. The choices are to stick around and be poor or sell out for whatever you can get to move away.
Every once in a very long while, some smaller town finds a new lease on life. But as a rule this is never the result of either prayer nor superior marksmanship.
I have observed the following: when something remarkably good happens, there are always those who attribute the good fortune to Jesus. Let a major disaster (a tornado, a hurricane, a volcanic explosion, a terrorist attack, whatever) and the same individuals will invariably be thanking Jesus for not being utterly wiped out.
"Jesus be praised, I lost my family, my home, my community, my dog, my cat and my clothes. Lord be praised! "
That sort of thing.
I do not find it bigoted in the least to say that this seems like rather illogical behavior to me. I tend not to atribute good fortune or bad luch to Jesus or God myself. Usually there is a discernable cause. When there isn't, it seems to me that there are many phenomena that are not yet explicable with the senses that we have.
I would not personally point out to such a person that they are being illogical, but it is not bigoted in the least to simply make the observation that this seems to be somewhat illogical behavior.
Pointing this out is simply an astute observation. It could be made by a Liberal, a Communist, or William F. Buckley himself.
When we left vile diseases like leprosy up to God and prophets to cure, at the end of the day, we still had lepers.
Smart people have determined how to cure and prevent leprosy, and we don't have any lepers in our midst. I am not opposed to those who say that God might have had a hand in causing smart people to research leprosy and find a cure, but when we left the whole problem up to Jesus and God... we still had lepers.
-
If you voted for Bill Clinton you aren't responsible for his adultery. Unless of course you knew he was an adulterer before you voted for him.
================================================
Suppose I did know Bill Clinton was an adulterer before I voted for him. How, pray tell, would his future adultery be my fault? One supposes that in lieu of being a presidential adulterer, he would be an ex-governor adulterer.
In fact, the reality is if you voted for him knowing he was an adulterer, then you not really responsible for his adultery anymore than he would be responsible for your goatbuggery or parking meter thievery.
I would like to point out that Bill Clinton playing with Monica and a cigar was not more than mildly embarrassing to some Americans, while Juniorbush's incompetent warmongering was far worse, as it has drivven millions of Iraqis from their homes, killed thousands more than Saddam ever killed, and 400 + American troops to boot.
I cannot see where Clinton's cigar abuse was in any way even in the same league.
-
I'm definately not thrilled with that prospect. But given the egregiously worse alternatives, it's the best we can hope for at this juncture.
Aren't you responsible for the actions of the person you elect into office?
Ummm......no. You weigh the pros and cons of each candidate, and make a decision based on that. You don't?
-
I'm definately not thrilled with that prospect. But given the egregiously worse alternatives, it's the best we can hope for at this juncture.
Aren't you responsible for the actions of the person you elect into office?
Ummm......no
So if you supported Herr Adolf back in 1933, you wouldn't feel any pangs of guilt on your conscience? Note, this is hypothetical no one is being accused of fascism or Nazism.
-
I'm definately not thrilled with that prospect. But given the egregiously worse alternatives, it's the best we can hope for at this juncture.
Aren't you responsible for the actions of the person you elect into office?
Ummm......no
So if you supported Herr Adolf back in 1933, you wouldn't feel any pangs of guilt on your conscience? Note, this is hypothetical no one is being accused of fascism or Nazism.
LOL.....now McCain is Hitler? It's no longer Bush? :D But to touch on your query more sincerely, of course I'd feel very bad about what I may have voted into office.....that's given what I know now, and if I wasn't some fascist supporter back then. Yet, if I were a Hitler supporter, I may have indeed supported his efforts. IF I was some fascist nazi sympathizer
Good thing, I'm not.
So, I'm not sure where you're going with this Js. As bad as you may think McCain may become, the agenda of Hillary, and worse, Obama, far outweigh the potential disaster that McCain may bring to this country.
-
No ulterior motives. I am really just curious how people are making their decision.
I'm in a similar boat, except I'm leaning towards Obama. Still, from a socialist perspective Obama and McCain are virtually identical. So in my mind I've got three choices.
1. Vote the lesser of two evils: Obama (of course, this is if Hillary isn't the nominee).
2. Don't vote at all.
3. Vote for a third party candidate.
The consequences I'm considering are:
1. If McCain wins, what have I done to help his agenda?
2. If Obama wins, what have I done to help his agenda?
3. Does voting for neither free my conscience some?
This is the first time I've lived in a Democratic Congressional district and I've never voted for the incumbent Democrat. He (Bart Gordon) has sent a number of flyers to my home talking about how horrible the immigration system is and his language is couched in the usual crap that goes with that issue. Therefore he never gets my vote. I either don't vote, or vote for the independent. I'm not even sure the GOP ran a candidate last time.
Our last Senatorial election between Corker and Ford Jr. was a joke. It was the right versus the extreme right (and the latter was the Democrat!). So, I expect little from the elections.
But I find it interesting that so many believe that the actions of the office holder are in no way related to the responsibility of the voter. I certainly wouldn't expect that argument from anti-abortion voters.
-
As bad as you may think McCain may become, the agenda of Hillary, and worse, Obama, far outweigh the potential disaster that McCain may bring to this country.
============================================================
Hillary wants universal health care. Obama wants something close to it. With McCain, we probably would get higher copays, less services, and rocketing drug prices.
McCain wants the war in Iraq to continue until whenever we not only see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel, but surpass it. The problem is that it's not a tunnel. It's a pit. How can the US win an Iraqi Civil War?
The GOP has been famous under Reagan and two Bushes for racking up the highest deficits in history. 70% of the current deficits are attributable to just these three doofuses. When the interest rate we have to pay on this debt hits even 5%, it will place a very, very heavy burden on each and every one of us. How can anyone piss away billions a month on a war and deny basic services to his fellow Americans. With McCain, we will get to see him try.
Hillary promises to be no worse than Bill. I am pretty sure we won;t have to worry about Monica, cigars or sex scandals with Hillary, and that is a plus. Obama will bring a feeling of newness to the US, as JFK did. What he does with it will depend on the quality of his advisors as well as how quick a study he is.
Elect oilmen: $3.50 gasoline.
Elect a military guy: More war.
-
No ulterior motives. I am really just curious how people are making their decision. I'm in a similar boat, except I'm leaning towards Obama. Still, from a socialist perspective Obama and McCain are virtually identical.
While McCain is no conservative, compared to Obama........well, there's a mountain of difference, especially if we're going to pay attention to their campaign rhetoric. But you go with what works best for you. I'm sure you'll make a highly informed decision, just as I will be.
And when Obama helps facilitate the next great 911+, are you going to feel any bit of guilt? Completely speculative of course
-
Vote the lesser of two evils: Obama (of course, this is if Hillary isn't the nominee)
You would vote for a guy that even opposed ending partial birth abortion?
-
As bad as you may think McCain may become, the agenda of Hillary, and worse, Obama, far outweigh the potential disaster that McCain may bring to this country.
============================================================
Hillary wants universal health care. Obama wants something close to it.
Using Xo speak, Hillary and Obama want to bring financial ruin to our economy and complete crisis causing bureacracy to our Healthcare system
McCain wants the war in Iraq to continue until whenever we not only see the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel, but surpass it.
Using Xo speak, McCain wants to help bring stability to the Middle East region, and as a result, help bring greater security to not just this nation, but to the world itself
-
No ulterior motives. I am really just curious how people are making their decision. I'm in a similar boat, except I'm leaning towards Obama. Still, from a socialist perspective Obama and McCain are virtually identical.
While McCain is no conservative, compared to Obama........well, there's a mountain of difference, especially if we're going to pay attention to their campaign rhetoric. But you go with what works best for you. I'm sure you'll make a highly informed decision, just as I will be.
And when Obama helps facilitate the next great 911+, are you going to feel any bit of guilt? Completely speculative of course
Terrorism is just part of life. It has been in Europe for decades, the fact that it took longer to hit our shores is thanks mostly to geography. As you know, I'm not a big believer in the "9/11 changed everything" mantra. We may well get hit again if McCain wins too. It is something we need to learn to live with. It won't happen often.
What really concerns me is that the interest rates keep getting slashed as some late (and I do mean late) line of defense against the credit crunch. Yet, lowering interest rates while the dollar is very weak is a formula for rapid inflation. We're already seeing it in petroleum, health care, and other sectors. Meanwhile the notion that lowering interest rates is helping is, to be honest, ridiculous. Look at the banks like Wachovia that are biting the bullet.
I don't really care that people in California overpayed on a $425,000 1100 square foot home. They had to know that the market for said home was never going to remain stable. What I do care is that men and women who are barely getting by are watching as their energy, medical, and food expenses continue to rise. In all honesty, I haven't heard much from the three candidates on working towards a real solution for that. I haven't heard much on how to address the problem that we're replacing manufacturing jobs with low paying retail and service industry jobs. I want to hear how, beyond plattitudes, we're going to help the poor in this country that doesn't involve bashing Mexican migrant workers as scapegoats.
All of that means much more to me than the myths that surround the real al-Qaeda and the SNAFU that is Iraq.
-
Vote the lesser of two evils: Obama (of course, this is if Hillary isn't the nominee)
You would vote for a guy that even opposed ending partial birth abortion?
As I said, it is a tough election for me.
-
While McCain is no conservative, compared to Obama........well, there's a mountain of difference, especially if we're going to pay attention to their campaign rhetoric. But you go with what works best for you. I'm sure you'll make a highly informed decision, just as I will be.
And when Obama helps facilitate the next great 911+, are you going to feel any bit of guilt? Completely speculative of course
Terrorism is just part of life. It has been in Europe for decades, the fact that it took longer to hit our shores is thanks mostly to geography.
So, because it exists, I should not bother to be concerned about it? I'm sure many folks back in the 30's also had the mindset that Fascism & Nazism exist..."it's just a part of life"
As you know, I'm not a big believer in the "9/11 changed everything" mantra. We may well get hit again if McCain wins too. It is something we need to learn to live with. It won't happen often.
Where as I'm of the mindset that having hit us once, the reason it hasn't happened already is largely due to our efforts at taking this on, vs the Chamberlain approach of simply letting it fester "over there". Sorry Js, this is where we really go in polar opposite directions. I am indeed a believer of how it changed everything. It was wake-up call. We had all been in this stupor, knowing that militant Islam did exist, but that it was really no biggie, because it was largely happening somewhere else. The effort and planning that went into 911 made it clear for me, that this threat is to indeed be taken seriously. Not so serious we impose marshall law, but one that indeed has justified many of the Constitutionally bound actions currently taken, and one of the reasons we haven't been hit....yet. I can guarandamntee you that AlQeada has been wanting to hit us multiple times since 911....to try and show us how vulnerable we are. Speculation of course, but logical, and the fact that they haven't been able to, is remarkable, to say the least.
Will we get hit again? yes. Will it be another 911? possibly. Will it more likely occur following an Obama or Hillary presidency, than a McCain Presidency, IMHO, absolutely
And National Security is WAY up there on my list of what's most important
-
What really concerns me is that the interest rates keep getting slashed as some late (and I do mean late) line of defense against the credit crunch. Yet, lowering interest rates while the dollar is very weak is a formula for rapid inflation. We're already seeing it in petroleum, health care, and other sectors. Meanwhile the notion that lowering interest rates is helping is, to be honest, ridiculous. Look at the banks like Wachovia that are biting the bullet.
Let me add a small point of agreement here. While the Fed has an absolute footprint of mandate in dealing with national security issues, i'd argue how very little the Fed has in the way of dealing with economic issues. Not only is there no real constitutional authority gien, the Fed can have some (+) influence on the economy, but it can have some severely negative effects on the economy. Just look at how Carter tried to micromanage the economy back in his tenure. Bush Sr. did a little of the same. Clinton coudn't, becaue he had for the most part, a GOP majority that actually were fiscally responsible.
The point being, the Federal Government should have as little a footprint as possible on our economy. Some regulation and oversight yes, but largely in order to provent illegal practices from occuring, NOT to try aim the ecomomy where they want it to go. That ususally results in even more bloated buracracy, innefficiency, and lost revenues.....and an even more tumbling U.S. $
It's also why Obama & Hillary are far worse than McCain, since that's precisely what they all would want to do, have the Government (Katrina, anyone?) running even more of the economy, thus perpetuating the visiscious cycle
-
So, in a democracy, you aren't responsible for making an informed decision? You could vote in a former Dixiecrat and then be astonished when he says something blatantly racist?
To be held responsible, i would have to have control over the persons actions.
Dixiecrats were as much about states rights and opposition to federal expansion as they were keeping the negro down.
The new dixiecrats are again the dems. This time states rights are about medical marijuana and assisted suicide.
-
The point being, the Federal Government should have as little a footprint as possible on our economy. Some regulation and oversight yes, but largely in order to provent illegal practices from occuring, NOT to try aim the ecomomy where they want it to go. That ususally results in even more bloated buracracy, innefficiency, and lost revenues.....and an even more tumbling U.S. $
================================================
Not true. Not even close to true.
During the Clinton years, we had the longest period of growth in the history of the US. It was due not so much to Clinton, but Greenspan fine-tuning the interest rates and making those weird cryptic remarks at which he excelled that prevented disruptive fluctuations in the market.
You want inefficiency, the Iraq War is a model of it. You want corruption, Halliburton's no-bid contracts are a great place to find them. And the economy is tanking because not even the US can fight a bazillion dollar war for five long years on credit.
The dollar did pretty much all the tumbling it has done since Juniorbush has been in power.
Clinton was far, far better at managing the economy, or more specifically, not screwing things up, than Juniorbush, who has been a disaster.
-
During the Clinton years, we had the longest period of growth in the history of the US. It was due not so much to Clinton, but Greenspan fine-tuning the interest rates and making those weird cryptic remarks at which he excelled that prevented disruptive fluctuations in the market.
Actually, that growth was largely due to the tech boom, that the Fed had nothing to do with, and the Fiscal discipline employed by the GOP majority congress, which also limited Fed involvement, and focused on primarily focused on paying bills like the rest of us
You want inefficiency, the Iraq War is a model of it.
Show me a war that excells at efficiency
You want corruption, Halliburton's no-bid contracts are a great place to find them.
You mean the same Halliburton employed by the Dems and Clinton?? So, you're advocating bringing Clinton to trial, then??
And the economy is tanking because not even the US can fight a bazillion dollar war for five long years on credit.
The economy is fluctuating, like it has for about a century now. And newsflash, will continue to fluctuate, but will fluctuate less negatively with decreased Fed involvment
Clinton was far, far better at managing the economy, or more specifically, not screwing things up, than Juniorbush, who has been a disaster.
Well, that's 1 opinion
-
>>Terrorism is just part of life.<<
This seems to be the mindset of the elitist left today. I suppose to them, suffering the death of a few thousand citizens every decade or so is an exceptable loss. Afterall, we deserve it, because we're doing all these horrible things around the world.
If you think about it, this is another example of how the elitist liberal thinks about the world. America's heartland is full of Bible thumping, gun worshiping, morons. The Middle East if full of bloodthirsty religious zealots unable to be anything else. So terrorism is simply a part of life just like global warming (::)).
The problem is terrorism is ratcheting up it's death count and will at some point have the capability of killing more than just three thousand humans at one time. But the elitist left closes it's eyes, sticks it's fingers in it's ears and hums. What accounts for their willful ignorance? Can they not see the obvious threat? Are they blind to what Europe is going through right at this moment?
Terrorism is just a part of life? Terrorism has nothing to do with life. We can't do nothing while monsters walk the Earth and plot to destroy us.
-
If you think about it, this is another example of how the elitist liberal thinks about the world. America's heartland is full of Bible thumping, gun worshiping, morons.
This is a classic example of victimisation.
Notice the archetype "elitist liberal." Does such a person even exist? If so, what percentage of Americans does that even represent? How many hold this view?
I actually live right on the woods with acreage. I am a devout Catholic. What stereotype does that put me into?
-
The economy is fluctuating, like it has for about a century now. And newsflash, will continue to fluctuate, but will fluctuate less negatively with decreased Fed involvment
=====================================================
Total nonsense!
We all know what happens when the government refuses to act to limit the fluctuation of the marketplace. Panics, Crises, Recessions and Depressions, on the average of one boom and bust every seven years. If you study American history, you will know that is what happened.
Capitalism is a mechanism that needs to be managed. With computers and major quantities of data, this is now possible. No matter what you say, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the economy will be managed to some degree by the Federal Reserve, which is not exactly a government agency, though the president does appoint the leader.
The president can still screw up the economy by printing money with nothing to back it up with and pissing it away on foolish wars and such, which is what is happening right now.
In the event you have not been awake since 2000, Juniorbush has furgled more with the economy since he took office than any other president in history, starting and ending his administration with givebacks or rebates. slashing taxes and mongering wars.
-
This is a classic example of delusion. Of course such a person exists. Barack Obama would be one, Mrs. Clinton another, and you JS would be another. As to the question of how many such people exist? I think it would be safe to say around 34 percent of the American electorate, and 100 of the Hollyweird crowd.
-
This is a classic example of delusion. Of course such a person exists. Barack Obama would be one, Mrs. Clinton another, and you JS would be another. As to the question of how many such people exist? I think it would be safe to say around 34 percent of the American electorate, and 100 of the Hollyweird crowd.
Victimisation continues.
Poor Rich is being looked down upon by the mean elitist liberals who make fun of his religious beliefs and his lack of intellect. :'(
I'm not buying it. I mean this with all sincerity Rich - find your bollocks and move on. Being a perpetual victim is no way to live life. You can do better than that. You can also do better than continually setting up these strawmen to knock over.
You're not some rebel because you own a firearm. You are no more a Christian than I. And if you feel continually looked down upon intellectually, I'd suggest the problem lies with your own insecurities and not some "liberal elite" that debatably exists outside of Ann Coulter's mind.
-
<chuckle>
Isn't amazing the lengths the left will go to excuse this sort of behavior? These are the people who claim to support the little man. The family man who struggles against the evil corporations to earn his daily bread. You know, the lunch pale folks who work all week and go to church on Sunday before watching the NASCAR race on TV. But as you can see, they despise the little man. All they want is his vote, so they pit their little men and women against others to keep the plantation full and their power intact. they see the country as a little sliver of blue on each and and the middle of the country as full of hicks and hayseeds to stupid to know what's good for them. Obama gave us a view into their world, and in fact, it sounded like something right out of the Communist Manifesto didn't it? The poor stupid masses yearning for JS to set them free from the oppression heaped upon them by the evil capitalists?
Like a wise man once said, "they'll keep you doped with religion, sex and TV." Only the religion they push isn't real. It's humanism. It's false. Like Reverend Wright's brand of religion. Like the unity Obama preached. It's false.
-
The economy is fluctuating, like it has for about a century now. And newsflash, will continue to fluctuate, but will fluctuate less negatively with decreased Fed involvment
=====================================================
Capitalism is a mechanism that needs to be managed. With computers and major quantities of data, this is now possible. No matter what you say, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the economy will be managed to some degree by the Federal Reserve, which is not exactly a government agency, though the president does appoint the leader.
Somehow Xo must have missed the part where I said the Fed needs to have little a footprint as it relates to economic intervention (translated, that doesn't mean zero footprint). And Xo further reinforces my point that if allowed the Fed could royally screw up the economy, thus even more reason for minimal involvement
-
And Xo further reinforces my point that if allowed the Fed could royally screw up the economy, thus even more reason for minimal involvement
=======================================
So if anything or anyone COULD screw up something else, it should be FORBIDDEN to have any
control?
You, for example, COULD kill dozens with your car, so therefore you should be forbidden to drive?
Faulty logic. Typical of fools who believe in economic theories drawn on restaurant paper napkins.
Someone or something other than blind chance needs to have a goodly amount of control over the economy. Left to random acts, there woill be a crisis every five to seven years. This is historically what has happened, and what is most likely to happen.
-
What you're seeing with Obama is what we see in here on a regular basis. The left throws out platitudes to the average man and woman while in private they despise them for their ignorance, belief in God, and reliance on something other than government and the good graces of liberals for their daily bread. As I said, we see it here. The attacks on the south and it's citizens. The ridicule of religious believers. Obama has unwittingly given us a glimpse into what he really thinks about all those redneck racists out there who are stupid enough to vote for him.
But here's more proof of what I said earlier. It's typical of liberals to feel superior to others and look down their noses at people. X has written his bigotry down for the internet to see. I couldn't have written it better myself. It's the bigotry and hate that's at the heart of liberalism. Obama is no different than X in this regard.
Poor Rich, ridiculed for his beliefs. Poor Rich, pious and innocent. Poor Rich, oppressed by liberals.
Yeah, the same poor Rich that calls a woman poster a bitch and posts crap like this: I wouldn't think you would be since I don't suck dick in the airport men's room or allow men to sodomize me.
Poor Rich, who gets all teary eyed when someone questions his beliefs, but then feels free to simplify someone else's into the most vulgar terms.
Forgive me if I don't get all misty here.
-
Obama was talking about people in small towns who have grown bitter because their lives are not going anywhere and they seek consolation in fundie religion, gun rights (which is not the same as hunting), and blaming foreigners and illegal aliens in particular for their woes. Such people exist, and I fail to see how anyone could deny this. He was not talking about rednects, but presumably about small town and rural Pennsylvanians and how to appeal to them in his campaign.
By definition, those who rule any society are members of some sort of elite. One would expect the politicians to run the country to understand the various groups that make up said country better than the average citizen.
When Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska said that Harold Carswell, who was referred to as mediocre should be a Supreme Court justice because mediocre people needed representation on the Court, he was rightfully laughed out of office, because we should elect our best people to run the nation, not some average Joe Sixpack.
The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans tends t5o be that the Democrats tend to be more of a meritocracy, that selects the best and the brightest, while the Republicans select those who pass a loyalty test to the economic oligarchy that actually runs the country first. They actually favored a buffoon like Juniorbush, who had never shown any special ability at anything over John McCain, because Juniorbush was predictably a total and unquestioning whore of the oligarchy and McCain had been known to have a few original thoughts, such as those concerning campaign reform and some degree of reconciliation with the Communist govt of Vietnam.
-
>>, Halliburton's no-bid contracts are a great place to find them.<<
I wonder if he knows the reprobate Bill Clinton handed out no bid contracts to Halliburton also.
Of course not ...
-
I see my stalker is back.
::)
-
>>Obama was talking about people in small towns who have grown bitter because their lives are not going anywhere and they seek consolation in fundie religion, gun rights (which is not the same as hunting), and blaming foreigners and illegal aliens in particular for their woes.<<
No shit brainiac.
::)
-
i dont see it as victimization per se
i see no "poor me" from Rich
it is more just a statement about liberalism in general
i dont agree with liberals
and I believe many of them think conservatives are dumb or worse
but that doesn't make me a victim
it's just a description of people that want to control me
describing their "evilness" doesn't equate to being a victim
-
Don't worry about it CU4. They're just making up shit as they go along, per usual.
The truth hurts you know.
;)
-
And Xo further reinforces my point that if allowed the Fed could royally screw up the economy, thus even more reason for minimal involvement
=======================================
So if anything or anyone COULD screw up something else, it should be FORBIDDEN to have any control?
And yet again, never said that. But don't let that stop you from continually misrepresenting another person's position. Wouldn't want to break up the one thing you do well