Thread: Obama camp furious!

Originally Posted by JMS

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

Spooky ---- get out of my head!!!!!!


Justin

I'm of the same opinion, Obama needs to be tested, he needs to be asked the hard questions, and he needs to show that he can first; do the job , and second; be trusted.

Everybody seems to have forgotten about the whole NAFTA SNAFU, but Obama really pissed off our neighbors, his camp called the Canadian government liars after "allegedly" sending a representative to the Canadian consulate and assuring them that Obama had no intention of following through with his promise to overhaul NAFTA. A promise he made to the American people while running for office.
That in itself is enough to make me question every promise or speech he makes.

It's no better than Hillary claiming her mother named her after Sir Edmond Hillary "for climbing Everest" a feat he didn't acomplish until 5 years after Hillary Clinton was born.


Oh and has anyone heard? Senator Obama has recieved the coveted support of the Black Panther party... An honor I was sure would go to Hillary.


I do not hate Obama, I just don't trust him. IMHO he is telling everybody what he thinks he needs to in order to get elected. I don't believe he is the best man for the job, in fact i believe he may be the very worst man for the job.

Obama could have my vote if he could show himself to be honest and practical. I don't believe his views are practical. I believe his views are limited, and that he is influenced by individuals who have even worse veiw points. His pastor would not be as much of an issue if Obama hadn't given his pastor in the title of mentor.
the controversial speeches by this pastor weren't offensive to Obama, or he would have separated himself from them. Obama is a smart man, I highly doubt he chose that particular church/pastor at random.
As for honesty, Obama has made promises that are outrageously impossible. The last speech I listened to by Obama, he stated that he was going to fix the Iraq problem. Do you have any idea how foolish that sounds? There is no easy solution here, if we stay, we are invaders, if we leave we open a void for terrorists to take over. There is no easy solution, no quick fix.
If Obama becomes president he may very well pull us out of Iraq, but one mistake in doing so, and we will be at war with Iraq again in the near future. Or our enemies will make Iraq a rally point for their cause and we will end up fighting terrorists on American soil.
That is one good thing about Iraq, as long as we are there, we can fight on our terms. once we pull out every terrorist that has been funneled over to iraq can now concentrate on targets on US soil. The "insurgents" we are currently fighting in Iraq are not Iraquis... don't ever make that mistake, there may be some Iraquis among them, but for the most part they are Islamic fundamentalists from Syria, Iran, Pakistan...

As I said, I am willing to explain my support to those who are genuinely interested in being enlightened. It is becoming progressively more clear that you have no interest in this. If you think Obama's speech yesterday sounded like a typical Washington politician, I have my doubts that you actually heard it. If that's how you listen to your pastor, I'm not sure I can take your word for it that he is so pure. I have never in my life heard a politician speak so frankly and competently about the real attitudes, fears and hopes surrounding the issue of race relations and their sources as I did yesterday. Whether you want to believe it or not, Obama has secured the Presidency for himself with that speech.

You claim that your pastor never mentions anything political. I wonder if you know the meaning of the word "political." The Greek root of the the word, polis, has to do with "city" and literally has to do with how people organize themselves and regard one another in order to live together in a common society. I don't even know how your pastor can talk about the Bible without talking about politics. The Bible is an essentially political manuscript, not only in its origins, but in its content. Being charitable, I presume you mean that your pastor is not "partisan." If true, then so what? The vast majority of clergy in this country are not overtly partisan at the pulpit. In fact, if they were so, their church would lose their tax-exempt status.

According to your own criteria, both Presidents Bush need to take responsibility for Falwell's and Robertson's offensive remarks, because both these individuals have personally counseled them and provided spiritual guidance to these Presidents, both before and while they were in office. They have been as central in their Presidencies and personal lives as Wright has been in Obama's. In fact, Junior Bush even credits one of these offensive clergy members with his "born-again" status.

Nowhere in my explanation of why I support of Obama did I claim that a large and bloated Federal bureaucracy was necessary or sufficient to promote the change we need. This was the failure of Democrats post-Kennedy. Your false accusation that I and other Democrats hold these beliefs is part and parcel of the politics of division that obstructs a genuine project of creating a common understanding. But if your world-view relies on right-wing hyperbolic mis-characterizations of the left, then perhaps you would understand if I offered the same sort of perspective from the left-wing on the right. Republicans and conservatives believe that if we simply had no government at all, then the lions would lay down with the lambs, that there would be no fraud, no conmen, and that we could rely on the goodwill of our fellow man with no further assurance or guarantee. They hold the antiquated belief that government is the enemy, while neglecting to realize that in our basically democratic system, WE are the government. This is why I cannot be a Republican, because they have no faith in the Rule of Law, think that any law or regulation is an unjustifiable burden, and fail to realize that without laws, and thus government, we cannot be free.

Finally,

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

Those who make money through returns on capital investment do not earn the income that investment produces, they capture it from those who worked to produce the valuable goods and services that were sold and which generated profit. Make no mistake, not all forms of wealth capture are immoral, and I don't consider wealth capture through investment to be immoral, but whatever else it is or isn't, it certainly isn't earned.

I understand that some of the highest payed college professors can make in excess of 500,000 a year! If you ask me, that is captured and not likely earned!
Many of the richest in this country are the ones who provide many of the jobs that we have! They give more to our society than the government as far as I am concerned!
The government tends to always take more than it gives, and what it gives has so many strings attached that a wise and prudent man would avoid those obligations and entanglements!

I understand that some of the highest payed professors can make in excess of 500,000 a year! If you ask me, that is captured and not likely earned!
Many of the richest in this country are the ones who provide many of the jobs that we have! They give more to our society than the government as far as I am concerned!
The government tends to always take more than it gives, and what it gives has so many strings attached that a wise and prudent man would avoid those obligations and entanglements!

He says typing on a computer only made possible through billions of dollars of government research grants (that no private investor would ever be bold enough to fund) communicating through an internet created with federal money for public universities, using electricity which is only universally available in this country thanks to the TVA and other similar federal and state government programs, and who will tomorrow drive to work on public roads, drink water and eat foods that are kept safe by government regulatory agencies (and who have been failing lately due to underfunding and systematic neglect by Republicans), who was almost certainly taught to read and write at a publicly funded school.

Seriously people. Take some time to reflect on how much you absolutely depend on others not just for your relative comfort, but for your very survival. And not just on individual others, but on the systematic and institutional organization of countless people you don't know and will never meet. That systematic and institutional organization is what government is. When you denigrate the "government" you denigrate all those people working to try to make things better.

Here's an analogy we might all appreciate. Government is like a straight razor. It needs maintenance and vigilance, especially when in use. In incompetent or malicious hands, it can be wielded with horrifically tragic results. When used by those who fear it, who believe that nothing good can come of it, it will invariably prove them right. But in the hands of someone who understands it and respects it, someone who has experience in its proper use and knows not only its limitations but how and when to press those limitations, it can be used with surprising grace and achieve results that no other similar instrument can possibly attain. But government is unlike a straight razor in that we have no other options but to have a government and use it to address our collective difficulties. We can put away our straight razor and use a disposable razor or a DE or we can just let our beards grow. But we have no such options when it comes to our government. If we use it too little or abolish it outright, a private enterprise will acquire the power to take its place, and name of such forms of "government" have been alternatively monarchy, oligarchy or fascism.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

He says typing on a computer only made possible through billions of dollars of government research grants (that no private investor would ever be bold enough to fund) communicating through an internet created with federal money for public universities, using electricity which is only universally available in this country thanks to the TVA and other similar federal and state government programs, and who will tomorrow drive to work on public roads, drink water and eat foods that are kept safe by government regulatory agencies (and who have been failing lately due to underfunding and systematic neglect by Republicans), who was almost certainly taught to read and write at a publicly funded school.

Seriously people. Take some time to reflect on how much you absolutely depend on others not just for your relative comfort, but for your very survival. And not just on individual others, but on the systematic and institutional organization of countless people you don't know and will never meet. That systematic and institutional organization is what government is. When you denigrate the "government" you denigrate all those people working to try to make things better.

Here's an analogy we might all appreciate. Government is like a straight razor. It needs maintenance and vigilance, especially when in use. In incompetent or malicious hands, it can be wielded with horrifically tragic results. When used by those who fear it, who believe that nothing good can come of it, it will invariably prove them right. But in the hands of someone who understands it and respects it, someone who has experience in its proper use and knows not only its limitations but how and when to press those limitations, it can be used with surprising grace and achieve results that no other similar instrument can possibly attain. But government is unlike a straight razor in that we have no other options but to have a government and use it to address our collective difficulties. We can put away our straight razor and use a disposable razor or a DE or we can just let our beards grow. But we have no such options when it comes to our government. If we use it too little or abolish it outright, a private enterprise will acquire the power to take its place, and name of such forms of "government" have been alternatively monarchy, oligarchy or fascism.

Except the government of the United States of America before 1930 can you give me an example of this! Hopefully one that did not eventually turn sour as our government has been doing for at least the last seventy years?

tick.....tick.....tick.....tick.....tick.....tick. ....tick....

That's the sound of the clock winding down on Obama's 15 minutes of fame.


The real shame of the whole Obama thing is that it took this long for people to start finding out anything about him.

Except the government of the United States of America before 1930 can you give me an example of this! Hopefully one that did not eventually turn sour as our government has been doing for at least the last seventy years?

Keeping in mind, of course, that the government of the United State prior to 1930 permitted horrific atrocities to occur in factories and industries across the nation, allowing such extremes of wealth disparity to occur that the massive stagflation that was the Great Depression was the only possible result, and when it occurred did nothing to alleviate the situation. That prior to the late 1800s, the legal apparatus and enforcement mechanisms necessary for indefinite incorporation and liability protection didn't even exist, mechanisms which make the private enterprise of today, which you seem to hold in such high regard, possible. The government that for nearly 100 years permitted the violent enslavement of others, an atrocity which was only abolished, and could only have been abolished through such a massive intervention of the Federal Government as the Civil War.

Here are some things that government can do, and that our government has largely succeeded in doing, since 1930. Through regulation and tax incentives, it has cleaned up the particulate pollution which was clouding the skies over our cities and poisoning the landscape of our rural areas. Through a judicious compromise on payroll taxes, it has secured a social safety net which preserves dignity in old age and ensured that the poorest among us can have access to basic medical care. It has put American children in schools instead of in sweatshops. It has substantially reduced workplace accidents and deaths. It leveled the income gap between the richest and the poorest (though since the advent of Reagan conservatism, this gap has returned with a vengeance). It has stabilized food prices at an affordable level through the application of farm subsidies. It has built an interstate highway system. It has preserved millions of acres of wilderness for the appreciation of future generations. It built electrical generation and distribution infrastructure that reaches even the most remote parts of our country. It has funded research into the most arcane, and to the layman, seemingly ludicrous ideas, ideas that no private investor would ever have the courage to risk his personal fortune on and which few investors would even have the wealth to fund, and which have resulted in innovations from atomic energy to various pharmaceuticals to transistors and plastics. On the just plain cool side, it has built a space program that has been so successful that to this day, ours is the only nation to have ever put human beings on the moon. And for the most part, it has done all these things without diminishing the personal freedoms and liberties enjoyed by its citizens.

And despite the fact that conservatives have been systematically attempting to undermine these achievements or restrict the benefits that come from them to the wealthy few, these accomplishments remain and continue to make all our lives better, cleaner, safer and more free. What they have succeeded in doing in attempting to turn back the clock to the days of the robber barons is leave us with an economy riddled with debt, not just in the government but in the average household as well, and on the verge of collapse. With their eyes only on short term profits, they have sold off our manufacturing base and sold out the American people.

I won't pretend that the accomplishments of our government since the 1930s have been perfect. The national spirit of a common cause and a common destiny, on which many of these accomplishments depend for political support, lost focus soon after FDR, and rather than focusing on achieving results, we began to build bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, and since that also goes hand in hand with corruption, waste and frustrating interactions with those it is meant to serve, Americans rightly became disillusioned with their government. In truth, it was not government per se that was at fault, but the way in which we were attempting to wield our government to solve the problems we needed it to solve. Rather like getting the angle wrong with your straight. And it's not a matter of getting government out of the way so that private enterprise can fulfill these needs. If private enterprise were capable of fulfilling them, they would already be doing so. But this doesn't mean that it's an either/or choice between government or private enterprise. Government provides the framework for the solution of problems, and only actually does the work when it is absolutely impossible for private enterprise to meet the need. We have public police and fire departments, because relying solely on private police and fire departments simply don't meet the social needs. Even then, it still typically allows the contribution of private enterprise in order to promote the benefits of competition and innovation. There are still private security companies and private fire departments.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Here are some things that government can do, and that our government has largely succeeded in doing, since 1930. Through regulation and tax incentives, it has cleaned up the particulate pollution which was clouding the skies over our cities and poisoning the landscape of our rural areas. Through a judicious compromise on payroll taxes, it has secured a social safety net which preserves dignity in old age and ensured that the poorest among us can have access to basic medical care. It has put American children in schools instead of in sweatshops. It has substantially reduced workplace accidents and deaths. It leveled the income gap between the richest and the poorest (though since the advent of Reagan conservatism, this gap has returned with a vengeance). It has stabilized food prices at an affordable level through the application of farm subsidies. It has built an interstate highway system. It has preserved millions of acres of wilderness for the appreciation of future generations. It built electrical generation and distribution infrastructure that reaches even the most remote parts of our country. It has funded research into the most arcane, and to the layman, seemingly ludicrous ideas, ideas that no private investor would ever have the courage to risk his personal fortune on and which few investors would even have the wealth to fund, and which have resulted in innovations from atomic energy to various pharmaceuticals to transistors and plastics. On the just plain cool side, it has built a space program that has been so successful that to this day, ours is the only nation to have ever put human beings on the moon. And for the most part, it has done all these things without diminishing the personal freedoms and liberties enjoyed by its citizens.

I contend that any of the above that is truly good or useful would have been brought about by private individuals had they been allowed to. Most of it though you will have to explain why it is a good thing for all of us not just the one individual who gets to suck at the government teat. Why is it now that private individuals can put things into space for a fraction the cost of a NASA launch yet they are not allowed to do so.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

And despite the fact that conservatives have been systematically attempting to undermine these achievements or restrict the benefits that come from them to the wealthy few, these accomplishments remain and continue to make all our lives better, cleaner, safer and more free. What they have succeeded in doing in attempting to turn back the clock to the days of the robber barons is leave us with an economy riddled with debt, not just in the government but in the average household as well, and on the verge of collapse. With their eyes only on short term profits, they have sold off our manufacturing base and sold out the American people.

How has the government deciding it has a right to nearly a quarter of my earnings made me more free?

We have no manufacturing left in this country in large part because the workers organizations and government regulations make the work force in this country far more expensive than the workforce elsewhere. In other words there is a greater supply of workers worldwide than there is a demand for them to work yet American workers are not allowed to meet the markets price so the work goes elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I won't pretend that the accomplishments of our government since the 1930s have been perfect. The national spirit of a common cause and a common destiny, on which many of these accomplishments depend for political support, lost focus soon after FDR, and rather than focusing on achieving results, we began to build bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, and since that also goes hand in hand with corruption, waste and frustrating interactions with those it is meant to serve, Americans rightly became disillusioned with their government. In truth, it was not government per se that was at fault, but the way in which we were attempting to wield our government to solve the problems we needed it to solve. Rather like getting the angle wrong with your straight. And it's not a matter of getting government out of the way so that private enterprise can fulfill these needs. If private enterprise were capable of fulfilling them, they would already be doing so. But this doesn't mean that it's an either/or choice between government or private enterprise. Government provides the framework for the solution of problems, and only actually does the work when it is absolutely impossible for private enterprise to meet the need.

There you go again assuming that a large organization is required to 'solve' the social issues of the day. The solution would be for the government to step out of the way of the individual. Then it would be governments only job to ensure that each individual has the protection to act in his ore her on self-interest. The beauty of what the founders of this nation laid out is that it is a system designed to work best when all the citizens are the most free to act in their own interest. Of course along with that is being responsible for ones own poor judgment or failures, this is the part that seems most difficult for most liberals to grasp.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

We have public police and fire departments, because relying solely on private police and fire departments simply don't meet the social needs. Even then, it still typically allows the contribution of private enterprise in order to promote the benefits of competition and innovation. There are still private security companies and private fire departments.

It's true that Police and Fire protection are areas the Government should handle, as well as road maintenance. However if you talk to anyone in government the don't encourage competition they resent it. If they were doing their jobs as well as they are supposed to there would be no need for the private companies, companies which by government regulation are not allowed to compete directly with the government in these sectors. Also when cities contract with private companies to provide these essential services essentially putting them back into the private sector why does service invariably improve?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I contend that any of the above that is truly good or useful would have been brought about by private individuals had they been allowed to. Most of it though you will have to explain why it is a good thing for all of us not just the one individual who gets to suck at the government teat. Why is it now that private individuals can put things into space for a fraction the cost of a NASA launch yet they are not allowed to do so.

I am not going to go into the political side of this argument, but I can shed some light on this one, since I worked in the space industry for a couple of years as consultant.

Each space mission is subject to a horrendous amount of planning, design and QA.
When I was the team lead for a system that was used to validate a 'weather sattelite'(say cheese ), the stack of requirements for the test system was 2 fists thick. Literally.

And in the intermediate design reviews, we had to prove that ALL individual paragraph sized requirements were taken into consideration in my design and interface documents (another fist thick stack of paper that we had to write).
This meant creating a huge traceability matrix, linking requirement IDs to chapter numbers. And trust me when I say that QA checked every single one.

And that was the design phase.
Acceptance testing itself consisted of hundreds of scenarios that had to be documented, set up, and tested. And each one had to pass. The fianl test report was another 2 fist stack of paper.

As for programming, as soon as we started integration testing, all modifications to the sources had to be linked via source code control to issue / bug report items, and had to be closed with an explanation that included all changed files and the modifications that were made, the root cause of the problem and the solution.

The actual work to build the system was < 25% of all the time and money that was invested.

The reason that private companies can outperform ESA and NASA is that they can take the armadillo aerospace approach: think about it; build it; launch it; see what happens.
A LOT of those startups are nothing but sinkholes for money, and go tits up.
The ones that make it trough are indeed more efficient (survival of the fittest) but you would not want a national program to be run like that. The stakes are simply too high.

The only way to make a reasonable guarantee beforehand that nothing will go wrong is by taking the slow, expensive approach.
If you don't have to make that guarantee, then you can take the McGuyver approach and indeed, it will be more cost efficient if it works.