Thread: Obama camp furious!

Anyone remember that John Kennedy was abhorred by many in this nation for being Catholic? And that accusations ran wild about how "the Pope would rule America" if he were elected. Good thing we learn from our own history, right?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Anyone remember that John Kennedy was abhorred by many in this nation for being Catholic? And that accusations ran wild about how "the Pope would rule America" if he were elected. Good thing we learn from our own history, right?

+1 That's bang on Russel!

Thanks, I just think its ridiculous how much stock the American public puts in the aspects of candidates lives that have nothing to do with how they'll run the country. I say cut out all the crap that doesn't deal with relevant political issues and hold weekly debates, round table discussions, anything that gives you a true feel for the person's character as it applies to the issues they'll be facing. All this talk of personal lives, religious beliefs and skin color is little more than sophomoric gossip that distracts good people from assessing what's really important.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Thanks, I just think its ridiculous how much stock the American public puts in the aspects of candidates lives that have nothing to do with how they'll run the country. I say cut out all the crap that doesn't deal with relevant political issues and hold weekly debates, round table discussions, anything that gives you a true feel for the person's character as it applies to the issues they'll be facing. All this talk of personal lives, religious beliefs and skin color is little more than sophomoric gossip that distracts good people from assessing what's really important.

So where do you draw the line? Are we voting for a leader of a nation or just some robot who manages things without addressing his personal inclinations and beliefs? I don't know where to draw the line on this one. If I see that a presidential candidate has a poster of Karl Marx, or some Communist revolutionary on his office wall -- I might think a little ----If I see a presidential candidate attend white supremacist organizations or has Hitler posters on his wall, I might think a little ------- Is it the total package or do you think a person can be a president without being affected by his religious beliefs, personal life, etc ------ where do you draw the line.

Justin

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

So where do you draw the line? Are we voting for a leader of a nation or just some robot who manages things without addressing his personal inclinations and beliefs? I don't know where to draw the line on this one. If I see that a presidential candidate has a poster of Karl Marx, or some Communist revolutionary on his office wall -- I might think a little ----If I see a presidential candidate attend white supremacist organizations or has Hitler posters on his wall, I might think a little ------- Is it the total package or do you think a person can be a president without being affected by his religious beliefs, personal life, etc ------ where do you draw the line.

Justin

I see your point, but you don't see these things.
Anything 'personal' you see about the candidates has been professionally groomed and evaluated to determine in advance how they will influence the voter.

When I vote for someone, my vote is based on a) if they give me the impression of being honest and b)how they will do their job.
I don't care about their beliefs, nor do I care about their marital status, or even if they are gay or not, or smoked pot as a teen.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I see your point, but you don't see these things.
Anything 'personal' you see about the candidates has been professionally groomed and evaluated to determine in advance how they will influence the voter.

When I vote for someone, my vote is based on a) if they give me the impression of being honest and b)how they will do their job.
I don't care about their beliefs, nor do I care about their marital status, or even if they are gay or not, or smoked pot as a teen.

You should listen to some of what that alleged "pastor" has said. If he was white and said that about blacks he would be in jail for inciting racial hatred, and threatening insurrection against the government. If Obama believes even a fraction of what he has heard his judgment is seriously flawed and his honesty is right out the window.

Why we put up with this behavior just because someone is a "minority" is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

You should listen to some of what that alleged "pastor" has said. If he was white and said that about blacks he would be in jail for inciting racial hatred, and threatening insurrection against the government. If Obama believes even a fraction of what he has heard his judgment is seriously flawed and his honesty is right out the window.

Why we put up with this behavior just because someone is a "minority" is beyond me.

Moreover, while I was watching the video, I was wondering what if "rich white man (men)" was changed to "rich Jewish men" or "the Zionist" ----- I know that white guys can be made the scapegoat of anything without much of a flinch by the media, but if such a substitution was made, I think the racism and bigotry in his statements would be much more obvious. Let a white candidate have a white pastor (that he considers a mentor) say such a thing, i.e., the Jewish money owners with their greedy little hands are responsible for the sorry situation of white people and see how long his race for presidency would last --- not very long and rightly so. I don't know what Obama's true feeling are --- and all of this makes me wonder ---- he screwed up by being associated with this guy for sure.

Today, there was plenty of news coverage on this and Obama's speech to explain himself and this situation. First of all, initially, he claimed he was not aware of such sermons by his pastor --- now he's saying he knew about them but did not agree with them. Hmm.

Juan Williams said something interesting about how Obama couldn't separate himself from this preacher because it was his only tie to the "black community" ---that is Obama, being a very privileged fellow, went to private schools in Hawaii (no real association with the "black community" there), went to Columbia and Harvard (considered fairly white bread stuff by most) and joined this church as a somewhat superficial connection to the supposed black community --- if he disconnects himself from this guy, he thinks he might disconnect himself from all of black America --- as if all black folks think this preacher is right --hmm ------interesting --- maybe, maybe not ---but interesting.

Justin

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?