Thread: Obama camp furious!

Originally Posted by 2Sharp

I agree with this. Look how well FedEx and UPS deliver packages. Our US Postal Service has sucked for a long time. I wonder how well FedEx and UPS would handle the mail? We need to dismantle much of our government and put it into the private sector.

bj

I hate to do this, but I have to defend the USPS, despite the fact that they irritate me some, too. I ship probably more than most, and outside one or two delays, have really never had a problem. UPS and Fedex are a bit more efficient, but they handle less than 10% per day of the volume of mail that the USPS does. I believe if either had to handle the volume USPS does, you'd begin to see the cracks in their systems. The great thing is, we have choices.

Now, back onto the topic...

Barack is a very likeable and eloquent guy. If you listen to his speeches, however, you'll discover that behind his florid prose, he's actually saying very little. He gets tons of credit from the weak minded for his eloquence and high minded ideals, but I have yet to hear a concrete proposal from him. He speaks of audacity, wishes, hopes, and dreams, but we live in the real world, and need concrete proposals. He's very good at not being there when a potentially controversial vote comes up in the Illinois statehouse. He appeals to those who want the government to look after them from the cradle to the grave, and think that government or "collective" solutions are the way to go, despite the fact that they've failed everywhere they've been tried. I'll admit to being somewhat taken in by the guy. I would love to see a black man as president, if for no other reason that it might shut Jesse and Bookman from Good Times up. Just not a Democrat, because that apellation is synonymous with Socialist in the modern day (not every Democrat, mind you...I'm sure there are some good ones...Zell Miller comes to mind...but the party as a whole is beholden to jagoffs like George Soros). And not a guy who refuses to categorically deny an obvious bigot and demagogue like Jeremiah White. If a white politician associated with the Grand Kleagle of the KKK (Oh, wait...Robert Byrd (Democrat) was the Grand Kleagle of the KKK) he/she would be expected to. Really, what I'd like to see is a Republican president with a balance Democrat/Republican congress. That way, everything is deadlocked and nothing gets done. The less our government can get done, generally the better off everyone is...less chance for them to screw it up.

Originally Posted by Joe Chandler

Barack is a very likeable and eloquent guy. If you listen to his speeches, however, you'll discover that behind his florid prose, he's actually saying very little. He gets tons of credit from the weak minded for his eloquence and high minded ideals, but I have yet to hear a concrete proposal from him. He speaks of audacity, wishes, hopes, and dreams, but we live in the real world, and need concrete proposals. He's very good at not being there when a potentially controversial vote comes up in the Illinois statehouse. He appeals to those who want the government to look after them from the cradle to the grave, and think that government or "collective" solutions are the way to go, despite the fact that they've failed everywhere they've been tried. I'll admit to being somewhat taken in by the guy. I would love to see a black man as president, if for no other reason that it might shut Jesse and Bookman from Good Times up. Just not a Democrat, because that apellation is synonymous with Socialist in the modern day (not every Democrat, mind you...I'm sure there are some good ones...Zell Miller comes to mind...but the party as a whole is beholden to jagoffs like George Soros). And not a guy who refuses to categorically deny an obvious bigot and demagogue like Jeremiah White. If a white politician associated with the Grand Kleagle of the KKK (Oh, wait...Robert Byrd (Democrat) was the Grand Kleagle of the KKK) he/she would be expected to. Really, what I'd like to see is a Republican president with a balance Democrat/Republican congress. That way, everything is deadlocked and nothing gets done. The less our government can get done, generally the better off everyone is...less chance for them to screw it up.

Joe Chandler for President in 2012
We'll need someone to clean up after Barack and Hillary

You're not going to get me to defend every policy that's called liberal or every special interest group that occasionally allies itself with the Democratic party. For the most part, I won't even defend the Democratic party itself, except for the legacy of FDR and some aspects of Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. Hell, I even think Nixon was a better President than Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. But if you look at the domestic and foreign policies he pursued during his tenure, he could in no sense be called conservative by today's meaning of that term. I mean, he and Patrick Moynihan, together with the backing of Milton Friedman, proposed implementing a flat, 50% tax rate with no exemptions or distinctions between wages and capital gains and at the same time giving everybody a grant for more than poverty level income. At the time, I believe the proposal was $10,000 per person. Accounting for inflation, that amount would now be more than $30,000 a piece, more than twice the currently estimated poverty level of income. Friedman eventually withdrew his support when he learned that rather than replacing the income tax system as it was, this proposal would be a mere supplement to the tax code. I must say, I would be very much in support of such a proposal if any politician had the courage and the intelligence to recognize its advantages and come out in favor of it, whether as a supplement or outright replacement.

There's a great deal I don't like about the left, but most especially, their infighting and short-sightedness. For the longest time, they lacked a common purpose and many to this day still refuse to see the underlying unity that binds together the American people. That Obama has made emphasizing this unity the central focus of his campaign is the biggest reason I support him. This is what I take to be the fundamental principle of liberalism, the recognition of our common dreams and common destiny, and the realization that government is an absolutely essential tool, judiciously used, to attain those things. This is in direct opposition to what I take to be the principle of conservatism, that we are isolated individuals who are entirely responsible for everything that happens to us, that when we fail we have no one to blame but ourselves and that when we succeed we don't owe that success to anybody else, even in part. For the longest time, liberals have been lost in the wilderness, but conservatives have just been incredibly naive (or disingenuous).

And I understand the frustrations many of us feel about welfare and affirmative action. If you haven't yet seen Obama's speech from Tuesday, you owe it to yourself to see it. He speaks directly to this frustration in that speech, and he has been remarkably consistent in his understanding of this issue through the years. His students from back when he taught law in Chicago have said that he claimed that he would consider his class a failure if by the end they did not find affirmative action at least somewhat troubling.

As for your choice of political insight, there's a reason the term "Machiavellian" has negative connotations. It's because this is most assuredly not the way to secure domestic peace and tranquility. I wholeheartedly reject the notion of any sort of "ruling class" and I think that you and everyone else here reading this would as well, if you stopped for a moment and thought of the implications of it. Moreover, if you read The Prince on your own, then you may have missed the fact that there is substantial evidence that Machiavelli wrote it as satire, rather like Swift's A Modest Proposal. If you want to read serious political theory, I would suggest John Dewey's The Aims of Education and Democracy as a Way of Life.

Finally, I reject the cynicism behind the notion that the only way to end conflict is to allow one side to kill off the other side. Historically, this has never been the case. Indeed, it is very easy (well, not easy, but possible and easily understandable) to change hatred into friendship. If it weren't possible, then we would still be enemies with England, and they would still be enemies with France, all of us would be enemies of Germany, and even the Swiss would be enemies of the Italians. You do what my mother has always suggested, and "kill 'em with kindness." You back off extreme hatred, and offer olive branches of conciliation and cooperation, rather than the blunt instrument of force. No one likes being forced, as Wildtim's comments in this thread illustrate. You help them to achieve their goals, and you don't extort anything in return. Eventually, hatred will turn to mere distrust, and then to ambivalence, and then to strong alliances. And while I understand the frustration and anger you conservatives feel at being seemingly "forced" to contribute to our common welfare, my argument is that such an attitude is counterproductive to our coming together to solve our common problems, and represents and is based on a profound distortion of reality.

On a personal note, I appreciate the sacrifice your family has made in defense of our country. My family has made similar sacrifices. My father volunteered for Vietnam as well. My paternal grandfather died of lymphoma brought on by exposure to the radioactive fallout from our use of nuclear weapons. I too attempted to join both the Navy and then sometime later, the Marines, and was rejected for similar reasons. Due to an accident at a young age, I lack the ability to rotate my right forearm. And I share your sentiment that I would fight and die to defend your right, indeed all our rights to speak our minds, but I don't share this sentiment merely because it happens to be the 1st Amendment to our Constitution, but because I recognize its importance in attaining the common understanding necessary for making a "more perfect union." I am not blindly patriotic, but I am profoundly patriotic, and profoundly proud of the accomplishments of our country in its brief history. I am also profoundly aware of the areas that still need improvement, and I choose to let these imperfections motivate me to participate in the political process and to engage others with whom I have surface disagreements, to lay out my side, and listen to those others so we can recognize and arrive at our common ideals and common goals and thereby find a non-coercive, inclusive way to address our common problems. For me, this stuff is deadly serious, and the easy and glib quips, the jokes and the innuendo and the outright lies are intensely offensive.

Originally Posted by Joe Chandler

That way, everything is deadlocked and nothing gets done. The less our government can get done, generally the better off everyone is...less chance for them to screw it up.

Here I'd love to go further, The last thing we need is a longer list of laws. I'd really like to see a three for one policy where congress had to remove three laws for every new one they pass. When we have a tax code that is physically impossible for any one person to read in a lifetime there is a huge problem somewhere.

I'd also love to see a flat tax across the board, but only as a replacement for the current system, there should be no reason why anyone with the brains to hold any job should not be able to understand exactly how the government is taxing them and right now not even professional tax preparers know all the tax laws that could be effecting their clients.

By allowing each person to be solely responsible for their own success and their own failures you encourage people to strive. When people strive they excel. When any one of us excels life becomes better for all. Yet it all starts with a single individual achievement. The collection of individuals achieving creates prosperity for everyone who is working for success. Those who fail and choose to continue to be failures by not striving are simply left behind as non-productive drags on everyone else.

By only accepting your self and achievements as a part of a collective whole you diminish the achievements of any one individual and therefore diminish the group as a whole. Through this continuing cycle of self-denial success becomes meaningless and the most successful individual is the one who does the least yet still has his wants met. In other words the pinnacle of this society is the one who would be dropped out of the other because he does not contribute.

Which society do you want to live in? In which picture do you think the greatest number of people would have the best chance at happiness?

Remember the we have a right to pursue happiness. I categorically deny that we should limit ourselves to mediocrity.

Barack is a very likeable and eloquent guy. If you listen to his speeches, however, you'll discover that behind his florid prose, he's actually saying very little. He gets tons of credit from the weak minded for his eloquence and high minded ideals, but I have yet to hear a concrete proposal from him. He speaks of audacity, wishes, hopes, and dreams, but we live in the real world, and need concrete proposals.

First, Joe, I want to thank you for your defense of one of my points about the USPS. I agree that it's a great thing we have choices, and it's even better that one of those choices has the capacity to meet everyone's delivery needs, even if it can't do it as quickly or cheaply as the private couriers can meet the needs of a much smaller segment of our population. It means that no one gets left out.

But I take issue with your characterization of Obama on the basis of his campaign stump speeches. There is a time and a place for a dry discussion of policy proposals, but in front of thousands supporters and interested onlookers who he is trying to inspire to support his candidacy is not one of them. If you are really interested in knowing what he wants to do, he has lengthy documents on his website that you can peruse at your leisure. The simple truth is that policy has not taken a front stage in this campaign because right now Obama's running against Hillary, and if you'll excuse me for being vulgar, there's not a c*nt hair's worth of difference between them on policy. The difference between them is one of politics, and so Obama has rightly focused his message on how he practices this art, through appealing to our common hopes and dreams, and not first engaging in the politics of personal attacks and spurious character assassination.

Barack Obama is not the Democratic party, but when he wins the nomination, he will have the capacity to lead the Democratic party in a new direction. While it may have been true in the past that the Democratic party has been funded by those individuals you cite (though really, what's wrong with George Soros that's not wrong with Ken Lay?) and that Democrats have been synonymous with Socialists (though socialism has worked out pretty well for Europe), those things are not true of Obama. Since the primary cycle began, he has raised most of the impressive amounts of money from the 1 million small donors who donate less than $200. He is funded by citizens like you and me far more than by wealthy special interests or corporations.

You have a stronger case accusing Hillary of socialism than Barack, as her healthcare proposal includes mandates while his only has mandates for children, and only because they don't have a choice. Obama has consistently walked the narrow path between meeting our social needs and preserving our individual freedoms. And you have to reach back to one of the oldest serving Senators to find a currently serving Democrat with a past of racism. Democrats are the ones who pushed through Civil Rights legislation and abolished segregation. Republicans are the ones with a problem with racism, and they have purposefully exploited it for their own narrow electoral advantage (without doing anything to help solve the problem) since Nixon (Hello! Southern Strategy anyone?).

Here I'd love to go further, The last thing we need is a longer list of laws. I'd really like to see a three for one policy where congress had to remove three laws for every new one they pass. When we have a tax code that is physically impossible for any one person to read in a lifetime there is a huge problem somewhere.

Hey, look at that Tim, we agree on something! There are far to many clauses and loopholes for the very wealthy to exploit and get out of paying their fair share, leaving the burden on all the rest of us.

But here's where we have different attitudes. I don't think that acknowledging and growing the social support networks that makes individual achievement possible in any way diminishes individual achievement, or constitutes a form of self-denial. Rather, I think that such acknowledgment magnifies and multiplies the value of such achievement, by making further achievement even more possible, by showing how every individual achievement essentially depends on the individual achievements of those who came before. By restricting the value and honor of individual achievement to the individual alone, rather than emphasizing the work and commitment necessary attain such achievement, we fetishize luck and happenstance. We breed an attitude of "get rich quick" and "I got mine, so screw you." This breeds resentment and division between those who succeed and those who do not, and does nothing to change the fact that individual achievement still relies on a comprehensive social support system. I don't think we ever have anything to gain by obscuring the truth from ourselves.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

But here's where we have different attitudes. I don't think that acknowledging and growing the social support networks that makes individual achievement possible in any way diminishes individual achievement, or constitutes a form of self-denial. Rather, I think that such acknowledgment magnifies and multiplies the value of such achievement, by making further achievement even more possible, by showing how every individual achievement essentially depends on the individual achievements of those who came before. By restricting the value and honor of individual achievement to the individual alone, rather than emphasizing the work and commitment necessary attain such achievement, we fetishize luck and happenstance. We breed an attitude of "get rich quick" and "I got mine, so screw you." This breeds resentment and division between those who succeed and those who do not, and does nothing to change the fact that individual achievement still relies on a comprehensive social support system. I don't think we ever have anything to gain by obscuring the truth from ourselves.

This is all well and good as a personal philosophy, and that type of social networking and building upon each others development is very healthy. Just don't let the Government bureaucracy try to institutionalize it. That would destroy the whole concept. Thats where I have a problem. Individuals choosing to work together to achieve or individuals branching out in a million directions all on their own, its all about people acting on their own freely to get ahead. Try to require teamwork especially by mandate, and with forms in triplicate and we will be standing in bread lines in record time. An oppressed people with no future.

50% tax rate with no exemptions or distinctions between wages and capital gains and at the same time giving everybody a grant for more than poverty level income. At the time, I believe the proposal was $10,000 per person. Accounting for inflation, that amount would now be more than $30,000 a piece, more than twice the currently estimated poverty level of income. Friedman eventually withdrew his support when he learned that rather than replacing the income tax system as it was, this proposal would be a mere supplement to the tax code. I must say, I would be very much in support of such a proposal if any politician had the courage and the intelligence to recognize its advantages and come out in favor of it, whether as a supplement or outright replacement.

I would fully support a flat tax, I think 50% is extreme, but even 10 or 15% would be enough to sustain our government if there were no exceptions...
The problem there is the politicians writing in their own tax breaks.

Finally, I reject the cynicism behind the notion that the only way to end conflict is to allow one side to kill off the other side.

That is not what I said. Firstly there is no definitive way to end conflict. Conflict is part of life itself.
I am talking about Hate and Violence stemming from that hate. I am talking about the fact that such feelings and thoughts can't be forced from a society. You are misreading my statements and construing what you want to hear.
Allow me to clarify:

Hate and prejiduce are thoughts and beliefs. They are taught by the actions and words of one generation, and passed along to the next. You can not force a person to change their thoughts or beliefs. You can nurture new thoughts, you can encourage free thinking.
The only absolute way to stop this hating or fighting is genocide. This is not an option, never has been. life does not exist in absolutes.
There is no short term solution to this problem, so we need to look at long term solutions.
The long term solution is to keep doing what we are doing. support these people, and nurture new ideas. new thoughts that may eventually replace the old hatreds. We need to stay in Iraq, and teach the Iraquis to stand on their own feet, and to defend their own nation. We need to stay and teach them to govern themselves. This is not going to be a short process, and will not benefit from a withdrawl of American troops at this point in it's evolution.

Is that plain enough for you?
I'm criticizing Obama because he makes the solution sound simple in his speeches, he is in my opinion making ridiculously impossible promises.

As for your choice of political insight, there's a reason the term "Machiavellian" has negative connotations. It's because this is most assuredly not the way to secure domestic peace and tranquility. I wholeheartedly reject the notion of any sort of "ruling class" and I think that you and everyone else here reading this would as well, if you stopped for a moment and thought of the implications of it. Moreover, if you read The Prince on your own, then you may have missed the fact that there is substantial evidence that Machiavelli wrote it as satire, rather like Swift's A Modest Proposal. If you want to read serious political theory, I would suggest John Dewey's The Aims of Education and Democracy as a Way of Life.

I am fully aware of the connotations and legacy of Machiavelli, his failed political career, his writings, and history. If you had read Machiavelli, and looked at history as he did when writing it, you would recognise the patterns present. Yes Machiavelli was a bit extreme in his views, but in his time many of the practices he wrote about were actually happening around him. He wrote what he saw and witnessed, and was unable to document as fact because of the risk of offending the kingdoms in which he lived and travelled. That is why it's called the prince, and not the king.

There's a great deal I don't like about the left, but most especially, their infighting and short-sightedness. For the longest time, they lacked a common purpose and many to this day still refuse to see the underlying unity that binds together the American people. That Obama has made emphasizing this unity the central focus of his campaign is the biggest reason I support him. This is what I take to be the fundamental principle of liberalism, the recognition of our common dreams and common destiny, and the realization that government is an absolutely essential tool, judiciously used, to attain those things. This is in direct opposition to what I take to be the principle of conservatism, that we are isolated individuals who are entirely responsible for everything that happens to us, that when we fail we have no one to blame but ourselves and that when we succeed we don't owe that success to anybody else, even in part. For the longest time, liberals have been lost in the wilderness, but conservatives have just been incredibly naive (or disingenuous).

Arnold promised the same unity when he was running for Governator... It didn't take long to see how things really work.

As for government being an essential tool, yes... Government should be a tool, not a self serving entity. Politicians should represent the people, not their own interests.
The united states was established as a union of seperate states joined under a common goal. This is no longer the case.

There are many aspects of our lives that should be left to local communities, and not central government to regulate. In communities where fire services are inadequate, there should be volunteer firefighters. We shouldn't look to the government to rule us. More accurately we can't afford to rely too heavily on the government.
Do you believe the police are there to protect you?
Do you believe prisons rehabilitate convicts?
Do you believe your local Senator cares about your (as an individual) freedoms?

next time you need the police, call and order a pizza, see who gets there first...
go to a prison, spend a little time observing these inmates, and you will see they are not in a prison... they are in a finishing school for criminals. By the time they leave, they have a PhD in crime.

Government has it's place, but too much government is a very bad thing. Instead of looking to congress to provide for all of our needs, each county should be allowed to find a solution. If they can't solve the problem, then the government should be available as a tool.
Currently there are so many laws on the books, no one could wade through them all... there are hundreds even thousands of laws that overrule each other, or aren't enforced...

People need to be held responsible for their own actions.
There's a time and a place for compassion and caring, but there's also a time for hard love.
Why should we support drug addicts? They made a conscious choice they should be responsible for their actions. Why should we support illegal aliens? same argument.
If illegal aliens were unable to get work, unable to get welfare, unable to buy property, or cars, insurance, or phone service, they would go back home.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

First, Joe, I want to thank you for your defense of one of my points about the USPS. I agree that it's a great thing we have choices, and it's even better that one of those choices has the capacity to meet everyone's delivery needs, even if it can't do it as quickly or cheaply as the private couriers can meet the needs of a much smaller segment of our population. It means that no one gets left out.

But I take issue with your characterization of Obama on the basis of his campaign stump speeches. There is a time and a place for a dry discussion of policy proposals, but in front of thousands supporters and interested onlookers who he is trying to inspire to support his candidacy is not one of them. If you are really interested in knowing what he wants to do, he has lengthy documents on his website that you can peruse at your leisure. The simple truth is that policy has not taken a front stage in this campaign because right now Obama's running against Hillary, and if you'll excuse me for being vulgar, there's not a c*nt hair's worth of difference between them on policy. The difference between them is one of politics, and so Obama has rightly focused his message on how he practices this art, through appealing to our common hopes and dreams, and not first engaging in the politics of personal attacks and spurious character assassination.

Barack Obama is not the Democratic party, but when he wins the nomination, he will have the capacity to lead the Democratic party in a new direction. While it may have been true in the past that the Democratic party has been funded by those individuals you cite (though really, what's wrong with George Soros that's not wrong with Ken Lay?) and that Democrats have been synonymous with Socialists (though socialism has worked out pretty well for Europe), those things are not true of Obama. Since the primary cycle began, he has raised most of the impressive amounts of money from the 1 million small donors who donate less than $200. He is funded by citizens like you and me far more than by wealthy special interests or corporations.

You have a stronger case accusing Hillary of socialism than Barack, as her healthcare proposal includes mandates while his only has mandates for children, and only because they don't have a choice. Obama has consistently walked the narrow path between meeting our social needs and preserving our individual freedoms. And you have to reach back to one of the oldest serving Senators to find a currently serving Democrat with a past of racism. Democrats are the ones who pushed through Civil Rights legislation and abolished segregation. Republicans are the ones with a problem with racism, and they have purposefully exploited it for their own narrow electoral advantage (without doing anything to help solve the problem) since Nixon (Hello! Southern Strategy anyone?).

Well, I must say it's a delight to hear someone defend "their guy" with such eloquence and class.
The thing is, their really not much difference between Barack and Hillary, with respect to their stated policies.
With respect, you're so galactically wrong about the Republicans being the party with the racism "problem" that it's ludicrous. The Democratic party you speak of is the Republican party now, and the Democratic party might as well be the U.S. faction of the Socialist Party. Those Democrats you speak of no longer exist. I submit that it is the current Democratic party that is truly racist. They labor along under the illusion that people (particlularly people of color) can't get along without government help, when it is most often their policies which are cited by both sides as the source of resentment and friction. This passive condescension is, to me, the ultimate form of racism, and in large part why minorities aren't any farther ahead than they are. They're perfectly capable, but they are made to believe ,by this ultimately racist philosophy, that they aren't. Isn't that the greatest insult to a race?
The Republican party (or more specifically conservatives) may be perceived as heartless, but I don't call that racist. I call that life.
You are obviously intelligent, and mature, so I won't sugarcoat this: You seem a nice fellow, but you're operating under the assumption that all men are created equal. They aren't. Some are born with more ability, drive, talent, call it what you will than others. Some are born into poverty, and work their way up. Some give up and stay there. This is the way of all things. We, as free people, must help and encourage those willing to try, and assist those with ability. In short, we must bring the bottom up. The liberal agenda is to bring the top down. If a person is determined to not do for themselves, and depend solely on others to do it for them, they should be left behind, and not even considered. The liberal agenda is to eliminate the possibility of failure, which absolutely guarantees mediocrity.

As to the difference between Soros and Lay, you're right. They're both scumbags. There's one gigantic difference between the two, though: Lay is dead, so he is no longer a going concern. And the "theory of relative filth" doesn't wash anyway. There are shitballs on both sides of the political spectrum. Anyone who wants to take from those who produce and give to those who do not falls into that category for me. Anyhow, I'm not naive enough to believe any of the current crop of politicians cares either way. It has become about power, and not service, and WE THE PEOPLE have let it become so. So I won't trash Obama or Hillary too much. I won't vote for them, either. As usual, in U.S. politics, it comes down to a choice between a giant douche, or a turd sandwich. And we all gotta take a bite, either way.

This is all well and good as a personal philosophy, and that type of social networking and building upon each others development is very healthy. Just don't let the Government bureaucracy try to institutionalize it. That would destroy the whole concept. Thats where I have a problem. Individuals choosing to work together to achieve or individuals branching out in a million directions all on their own, its all about people acting on their own freely to get ahead. Try to require teamwork especially by mandate, and with forms in triplicate and we will be standing in bread lines in record time. An oppressed people with no future.

Don't distort my view and the views of countless liberals and progressives like me. Government does not force teamwork, but it clears the ground so such collective enterprises can get off the ground in the first place. When social support systems fail or are incomplete, and they invariably always fail and are always incomplete, the role of government is to assess what's going wrong and implement rules and regulations to mitigate or eliminate the causes of that failure, or clear the way for resources to be made available to build new and different social support systems and expand those systems to support every greater numbers of our population. In this way, individual achievement continues to be made possible, and through the improvement of these support systems, allows ever greater achievements to occur.