Thread: Obama camp furious!

Originally Posted by Mike_ratliff

Okay, i'll concede to that one... the place I read it seemed reputable enough... It doesn't change the fact that Hillary IS 1 a lawyer... 2 has been involved in numerous scandals She is the only First Lady ever called to testify before a Grand Jury inquiry... 3 she voted for the Iraq war... she now says as president she wouldn't have started this war, but she voted for it... 4 The clintons both Bill and Hillary have a long documented habit of obstructing justice. I think the word that fits here is "dishonesty"
I can't find it in my heart to trust Hillary any more than Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton.

if you still have questions about Hillary, read this...

What is the meaning of "is"

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

i just happened to check in on this forum.
Funny--my impression of folks from reading their posts on just the shave-related topics is one thing; and then when I see the same folks posting their strongly-held political views on this part of the board, if they are from a different political point of view than me, I can't but help feeling a little less "warm and fuzzy" about them. That's why I'm not a big proponent of including this type of political discussion on what I think should be a board devoted to shaving and non-political topics. Sorry--but if you're posting some really strong rhetoric that rankles me, I not going to feel the same way about you, on a gut level, than if I think you're "with me".

I don't know what to say but that's just life ---- anyone who opens his mouth should realize that his fans and enemies will probably both increase -------but I don't think it has to be as serious as all of that , especially on this forum. Personally, I've never been one to care if people like me or not ------ also, I have family members who do not think like I do but we are all still a close family---- just have to keep things in perspective.

Justin

Hey the last president who really managed to PO the Canadians (present pres excepted) was Taft and his only legacy is getting stuck in the White house Bathtub.

Sorry Billy.

My political opinions are a important part of my belief system, and therefore influence much of my thinking. If someone has to be "with you" to make you think their opinion is worth while so be it.

I prefer to discus and even argue points of view without allowing it to effect my respect for the person who holds them. There are several guys here, some in this thread, who I often disagree with on political and social matters yet they are some of the my most respected mentors on shaving matters. I will respect their opinion while at the same time thinking they are wrong and trying to change their mind as they try to change mine.

It's far to interesting to debate this topic in a forum with so many guys who are at least my intellectual equals and also much more well informed than the average Joe off the street. As well as being able to gain a world perspective from some of the more far flung members here. This is the perfect place for this type of discussion as this is the most mature and intellectual crowd I am likely to meet at any time.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Hey the last president who really managed to PO the Canadians (present pres excepted) was Taft and his only legacy is getting stuck in the White house Bathtub.

Sorry Billy.

My political opinions are a important part of my belief system, and therefore influence much of my thinking. If someone has to be "with you" to make you think their opinion is worth while so be it.

I prefer to discus and even argue points of view without allowing it to effect my respect for the person who holds them. There are several guys here, some in this thread, who I often disagree with on political and social matters yet they are some of the my most respected mentors on shaving matters. I will respect their opinion while at the same time thinking they are wrong and trying to change their mind as they try to change mine.

It's far to interesting to debate this topic in a forum with so many guys who are at least my intellectual equals and also much more well informed than the average Joe off the street. As well as being able to gain a world perspective from some of the more far flung members here. This is the perfect place for this type of discussion as this is the most mature and intellectual crowd I am likely to meet at any time.

We all have different opinions, view points, etc... the fact that we can get together and shoot the bull so to speak is what makes this forum so cool... If someone wants to vote for Hillary, it won't change my opinion of them... It just happens that I really don't care for the candidates presented by the Democratic party at this time.

It is a real sad state that our society has gotten to in which a candidate is chosen not on merit, but on their chances to beat the opposition's candidate...
The polls say Hillary has the best chance to beat McCain, but 64% of Democrats polled didn't think they could trust her... OUCH!
The deeper we get into this primary the more we see of each candidates negative side, dirty ads, dirty politics... It all accounts to the same. I want a leader I can respect, one who doesn't resort to dirty politics, one who can teach younger generations the value of honesty and good morals.
i also want a president who won't back down to terrorists. We have been under attack since the 1970's, I respect the Bush's both for their war on terror, and those tasty baked beans...

As an Obama supporter, I would be happy to explain to anybody who wishes to genuinely be enlightened as to my reasons for supporting him. As for the spurious rumor-mongering, cherry-picking through his pastor's sermons, and outright bile spewed about him, I will not address these things, because they do not come from a place of ignorance, but from hate and arrogance. Ignorance is not a character flaw. It can be corrected in those who wish to learn. But these smears are not merely ignorant, they are hateful, divisive and undermine our ability to address the very real problems we collectively face, not merely as citizens of this great country, but as citizens of the world. I know many Muslims in my offline life, and every one of them is an upstanding and decent person. In fact, the vast majority of Muslims around the world are people just like you and me. They love their families, want a better future for their children and need the respect owed to every living, breathing human being.

There is one particular issue that was mentioned earlier in this thread that I do want to address here. That is the notion that tax cuts benefit the middle and poorer classes. In fact, when tax cuts are applied universally to all income levels, they are a burden on the middle class. The reason is both simple and subtle. Consider three different individuals. The first is who we might call a member of the "working poor." He is only employed part time, because he lacks training for the full time jobs available in his area. In a given year he makes $20,000. The second is someone who we would consider "middle class." He has a full time job, but also has many expenses, from a mortgage to transportation costs. Like the first individual, he is largely living paycheck to paycheck, but this is because he leverages his higher income to a higher standard of living. He makes $100,000 a year. The third person is wealthy. By far the vast majority of his income comes from returns on investments, though most of this income is re-funneled back into investment in order to defer tax obligations on that income. He makes $1,000,000 a year, but only spends about $200,000 a year to maintain his more grandiose lifestyle. All of these individuals are single with no children, for simplicity of analysis.

Now, suppose, for the sake of argument, that the first individual has a tax obligation of 30%, the second has an obligation of 35%, and the third has an obligation of 40%. Now, we pass a tax cut of 5% on all income brackets.
Let us also suppose that each of these individuals takes the standard deduction, rather than itemizing their deductions. Under the old system, the first individual owes $4500 (($20000 - $5000(STD)*.3). The second individual owes $33,250 (($100,000 - $5000) * .35) and the third individual owes $398,000. Under the new system, the first individual owes $3750, saving a measly $750 bucks. The second individual owes $28,500, saving $4750, and the third individual owes $348,250, saving a whopping $49,750!

In other words, a large 5% tax cut only increases the buying power of the poor guy by a measly 4.6%, it increases the buying power of the middle class guy by only 6.6%, but it increases the buying power of the rich guy by 7.6%. Notice the pattern? Any flat tax cut disproportionately benefits the wealthy more than it benefits those less wealthy. If you want to put money in the hands of the poor and middle class working folks, increase the standard deduction, or better, turn it into a fully refundable tax credit instead of a deduction.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

As an Obama supporter, I would be happy to explain to anybody who wishes to genuinely be enlightened as to my reasons for supporting him.

Since this is a thread about Obama I have removed from my quote of your post everything in your post that was irrelevant to any discussion of him.

Now go ahead and tell us why you support him.
Also explain how he can have such a racist hate monger as his mentor and friend yet claim to never have believed his words or listened to him.


As for the irrelevant stuff. The more tax cuts the better. Sure they will benefit the most those who pay in the most, thats life. I bet your poor guy could use that $750 a lot more than the rich guy even notices the extra fifty grand and would be much better off for it.

Also since the poorest 40% of the country pays nothing in taxes with 85% of the burden falling on the top 5% I think your taxation brackets should be revised. Heck I made a lot more than you lowest wage earner last year yet I didn't pay nearly 30% of my income in taxes. So really the bottom of the barrel benefits zero from a tax cut because they pay zero in so the rich get even more of a boost.

I know, we should tax the poor since there are so many of them. That the ticket!! then they could benefit from tax cuts too!!

Now go ahead and tell us why you support him.
Also explain how he can have such a racist hate monger as his mentor and friend yet claim to never have believed his words or listened to him.

I will refer you to the groundbreaking speech Obama gave yesterday. You can find it here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23702758/
Simply click the link to the right for the full video of the speech. His words are far more eloquent than mine in explaining his relationship to his pastor.

I wonder, when was the last time you went to church and listened to what your pastor, priest or rabbi was saying? In the Catholic church where I was raised, it was rare for more than a month to go by without our priest saying something I found objectionable, or more than a year without saying something outright offensive.

And speaking of offensive clergy, why is it that when Obama's opponents cherry-pick through his pastor's 20 year career to find a half dozen offensive comments, Obama must not only take full responsibility for those comments, but it is assumed that since he didn't break all ties with the church in which he was married, and in which his children were baptized, he automatically supports and agrees with those comments? Why don't you hold Republicans responsible for the offensive things Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Mike Huckabee or any of the innumerable other radically conservative clergy have said? In my mind, what these "men of God" have said far more offensive than anything I've heard in the You-Tube videos of Wright.

I support Barack Obama not only because I agree in large measure with his policies. In fact, I think those policies don't go far enough. But if it were merely a matter of policy, I would have supported Edwards or even Clinton. I support Obama because of the way he practices politics. His method is that of the community organizer. He listens to all the people who have a stake in solving a problem, distills their needs and desires from what they say, and helps craft and implement a compromise solution which meets everyone's needs. He doesn't do this by railroading the discussion, or by excluding points of view, but by empowering people to learn about the problem, learn what their stake in its solution is, and learn what they can do to make things better. Moreover, he believes that the politics of personal attacks, distortions and outright lies that pervades not just this thread, but the political environment in general, is what prevents us from making the changes necessary to ensure equality of opportunity and real social and economic progress. It is the tool of the fearful, who cannot bear to risk some small portion of their wealth so that countless others can have the opportunity to have good, clean food, adequate shelter, a decent education, quality healthcare, fulfilling work and peaceful coexistence with their fellows.

As for the irrelevant stuff:

Also since the poorest 40% of the country pays nothing in taxes with 85% of the burden falling on the top 5% I think your taxation brackets should be revised.

In fact, the thought experiment I offered is flawed, but not in the way you suggest. I hypothesized a basic, if shallowly progressive income tax system. In fact, due to sales taxes, FICA, and local and property taxes, our system is shallowly regressive. The poorer you are, the more taxes you pay in proportion to your wealth and income. For the moment, I will grant you the fact that the richest 5% pay 85% of Federal Revenue from the Income Tax. But this amount is not nearly enough, considering that the richest 5% own 99% of the private wealth in this country, and capture over 95% of the income.

As far as pastors go I listen to mine every sunday, thats right listen. If I find something he says incomprehensible or objectionably or even curious I ask him about it. It's not hard pastors are generally pretty talkative guys and the like to explain the bible, so they talk about it. If I found him to be even vaguely political or racist I would find another church.

I would say inviting the man to speak at his candidate announcement is a little closer than a random member of the congregation so yes he should be aware of that mans beliefs. If he is not it shows his lack of judgment. Either way not someone who should know where the red button is let alone be in charge of it.

Why should republicans own up to Pat Robertson et al. they aren't asking Hilary to own up to Farakan or any of the other extremest in the Democratic party. They are just asking Obama to own up to a man whom he is actually associated closely with.

Here is the problem with the whole liberal establishment.

"empowering people to learn about the problem, learn what their stake in its solution is, and learn what they can do to make things better. Moreover, he believes that the politics of personal attacks, distortions and outright lies that pervades not just this thread, but the political environment in general, is what prevents us from making the changes necessary to ensure equality of opportunity and real social and economic progress. It is the tool of the fearful, who cannot bear to risk some small portion of their wealth so that countless others can have the opportunity to have good, clean food, adequate shelter, a decent education, quality healthcare, fulfilling work and peaceful coexistence with their fellows."

You actually do believe that change is needed for any of this to happen and the the government is capable of being the instrument of change. What would truly allow the good things in here (they are hard to find in the rhetoric) to happen is for the government to step back let people do as people do and freedom and choice will bring about the positive changes needed. Most of which did happen back in a time before social security and Medicare and Medicaid when the government did keep a hands off approach. I thnik the worlds experience with collective governments and governments in general is that they never lead to the common good and only to the common bad the lowest level possible not the highest.

Oh and people don't capture income. Those guys who rob the stop and shops might but everyone else earns it.

I did hear Obamas speech and I must say never before have I heard him sound more like a typical Washington politician.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

And speaking of offensive clergy, why is it that when Obama's opponents cherry-pick through his pastor's 20 year career to find a half dozen offensive comments, Obama must not only take full responsibility for those comments, but it is assumed that since he didn't break all ties with the church in which he was married, and in which his children were baptized, he automatically supports and agrees with those comments? Why don't you hold Republicans responsible for the offensive things Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Mike Huckabee or any of the innumerable other radically conservative clergy have said? In my mind, what these "men of God" have said far more offensive than anything I've heard in the You-Tube videos of Wright.

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't these aired comments taken off of a dvd sold by the church or at least at the church --- I don't think conservatives had to to strum through years of archive footage to cherry-pick a few comments ---I believe they were presented in some consolidated format as a showpiece or as proud highlights of the church.

Again, I will say that people shouldn't be held accountable for those that endorse them --- if the Nation of Islam or whatever or whoever endorses Obama then he shouldn't be held accountable but a mentor or spiritual adviser is a different story --to some degree at least --- at least in the sense that some effort should be given to discern if the student thinks like the mentor. Is anyone saying that Obama should not be questioned --- it is politics --- he is running for president. He should be given a chance to defend himself and his thoughts and actions weighed.

Well the fact is since you only have ---what 7 or so posts -- you really don't know how any of us have thought of or responded to such scenarios. I don't know too many here so dogmatic or partisan as to give sole privilege to candidates because of party affiliation ------ my main problem is that Obama has not really been challenged yet. I think there is a certain delicacy ---a handling with kid gloves because of the sensitive nature of all of this. I'm sure Obama is a capable, bright guy --- so let's see what he is made of --like every other presidential candidate -- or is he not like every other presidential candidate?

Justin

It seems as if Justin and WildTim have summed up my thoughts rather well!