Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike

Obama Faces Challenging Re-Election Climate

Recommended Posts

In 1976, I voted for Jimmy Carter as a result of a single statement that he made while campaigning, "I will reduce the size and scope of the federal government." In 1980, I voted against him, because during his first term, he failed to even make an attempt at doing so.

As an American living in a foreign country, bloated to its shoreline by bureaucracy, observing how that fact, like the python, slowly, consistently smothers individual creativity and eventually swallows the self-sense of enablement, I am more concerned than ever for my native country and her future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this crap that's been going on with all the candidates this past year has just continued to solidify my continuing desire to not even bother voting.

Until I can find a candidate that I'm not describing as the "lesser of two evils" I don't plan on participating in this at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually worse than voting for one of the candidates, even if you're not 100% sold on them. If there's anything I can't stand more than cottage cheese, it's voter apathy. I'm sorry, I'm not Ms. Patriotic Rah-Rah Yankee Doodle and I hate jingoism with a passion, but I take my right to vote seriously, and even if it means voting for a lesser of two evils (as was the case in 2004), I voted anyway.

Seriously, who would you rather have President for the next four years? Obama or one of the following; Republican John Kerry, Christian Dominionist, Serial Adulterer and Christian Dominionist, or Grandpa Simpson?

This isn't a hard choice. I've been disappointed with Obama, because I thought he'd have done more at this point, but he's still done quite a bit of good, and even a mediocre Obama is better than those freaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tough for me to support a system that has become so corrupt.

The thing I hate more than anything really is the parties. People become so obsessed with voting with their party and sticking with their party that they don't even seem to really care about anything else. I hate the fact that the job of a majority and minority whip even exists, or at least the part of that job that causes them to yell and scream at their party members for not voting with their party.

Until I see a candidate who is willing to say "I have done the research, weighed the options and am voting for what I think is right regardless of what my party thinks" and does not involve religion explicitly into his or her politics, as in saying "I vote no because the Bible said so", I can't with any confidence participate in this. I thought that perhaps John McCain would be one of those guys but as the 08 campaign continued on, things got worse (mostly due to Palin).

I realize saying "I don't vote" to voters is often like walking into a feminist organization and shouting "Who wants to cook me dinner and show me their t*ts?" but I just can't bring myself to do it. At least, not yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry . If they do , the rest of the world is gonna put severe sanctions on you . You can no longer be trusted . You ,N.Korea and Iran ( the all new Axis of Evil ) can set up a paintball league or something , then ... :cool:

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1976, I voted for Jimmy Carter as a result of a single statement that he made while campaigning, "I will reduce the size and scope of the federal government." In 1980, I voted against him, because during his first term, he failed to even make an attempt at doing so.

As an American living in a foreign country, bloated to its shoreline by bureaucracy, observing how that fact, like the python, slowly, consistently smothers individual creativity and eventually swallows the self-sense of enablement, I am more concerned than ever for my native country and her future.

It was logic like this that set the ball of decline into motion . The President doesn't run the economy, but certain agencies are necessary for free-running capitalism to be checked if it goes too far . Absolute free-markets are a fairy tale , and given human nature , will ALWAYS do more harm than good if allowed to do so. Carter was the most decent man you have ever had as President -individually . He gave no BS and spoke straight .America went for flag waving and a sense that the free-ride would/should never end ,if you could just find a court jester to tell you so ...enter Reagan and the downward spiral .

Obscene wealth was never the 'American dream ' ,I'm sure . Nothing wrong with being wealthy , but the certainty that most of your fellow countrymen are doing ok is lost today-to your own peril ,I think . I'm pleased to hear there have not yet been a lot of really outrageous acts during this downturn ,as they certainly are possible .That is not security , but a step back to medieval times, and the American rich need to remember France circa 1789-just a lot less respectful of the wealthy , though , and well armed to boot.

You were young then , and thus forgiven . Don't do it again , please .

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To categorize wealth as being "Obscene" and then in the very next sentence make the statement:

Nothing wrong with being wealthy ....

has to be one of the quickest flip-flops I have ever seen.

The fact is, my friend, that capitalism (self-reliance to secure, claim and maintain individual property rights) is the prevalent model in higher life forms throughout the planet. It is only the weaker fragile forms which seek species continuation through huddled vast numbers, operating in unison under a single mindset.

As for a need for free market-sponsored government to form more and more regulatory agencies in order to do battle against the greedy; it has often been observed that tyranny most often begins anytime attempts are made to regulate morality. As the regulators usually become the more corrupt - see: Organized religion, USSR, Venezuela, etc., etc., etc.

Smaller, leaner governments, open global markets fused with the individual's inbred ambition to make a success of their life is what has always produced the greatest human advancements, in contrast to the Dark Ages, when men were over-taxed, under-incentivized and taught that their betters were taking care of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary , social development in the 20th century ONLY came from leftist movements that were willing to often die to see the movement of wealth from the hands of those that had way too much -and they knew it ( if they answered honestly ) - into the hands of what was to become the middle class -and capitalism saw this as good . Well led , or at least as well as possible given human frailities , and funded governments willing to regulate have made all these movements possible .

A strong middle class with spending power and a sense of hope has been the pinnacle of capitalism , and saved it from the bloodbath that will ensue otherwise -and rightly so .

You have spent too long in S.America where EVERYTHING is corruption , and nothing makes sense in any economic model . Left or right is just a power play -nothing more .

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To categorize wealth as being "Obscene" and then in the very next sentence make the statement:

has to be one of the quickest flip-flops I have ever seen.

Wealth has it's deserved place, and is not a problem for me nor most people ,I think .Did you not note the term obscene-nor can't get the point, nor it's meaning ? This form of wealth , as we all know ,is unearned individually , but instead comes from speculation or taking advantage of people and situations , and I'm stunned to see you stand behind it; Steel -a false poet ?!?!

It is using a faulty marketplace that takes advantage of situations where people don't value ,or are not allowed to value ,their own contributions into that wealth generation, but yet rewards those who simply have titles in a particular corporation, regardless of their worth or effort . This makes it somewhat medieval . Forgive me if I dare to deny you , and spit on , the potential for a palatial home and lifestyle and numerous servants /slaves . Read some Dickens-again ,my lord .

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you do agree with Kevin's argument of the need for more government and tighter restrictions on the accumulation of wealth by individuals, Tim.

When I was 21 years old I voted liberal for Eugene McCarthy, because he promised to end the war, from which I had just left. I did not want to be asked to go there again! You are about to graduate from college and I would imagine it must scare the heck out you to be faced with the prospect of having to start from zero in the business world. I can understand the POV of "Take it away from the wicked rich and give me a big wad of their ill-gotten cash!" But a free market and the confidence in rising to the top will get you where you want to go much quicker than robbery at the point of a regulation.

Kevin, do you seriously think I should simply accept your implication that the attempt to recreate once more, the social changes wrought upon an under-educated, agricultural-based, mouth-breathing, slow-paced society of the 1930's - which saw tighter regulatory control of the money supply and massive government power grab globally - has, over the past 3 years, improved significantly the industrial, social or service sector mood in a radically more informed, educated, freedom-enlightened USA? Yeah, give us more of that.

As for those who make money at the expense of others through some fraudulent means, those types will always be among us, my friend. Better to watch your own buck than to rely upon DC to do it for you. Many of those grifters eventually find their way into politics.

The only legal wealth I consider immoral is inherited. Now, that is obscene! As far as I am concerned the only thing the tax man should leave a kid born to wealth from his/her parent's estate is money for 6 months rent, a beater car and the cost of having a hundred resumes printed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what they say, "Under 30 and not liberal, no heart; over 30 and still liberal, no brain."

The actual quote is, "If you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at 40 you have no brain." - commonly attributed to Winston Churchill, though there's no evidence he actually said it

I think the quote is stupid, in any event. True conservatism doesn't exist in this country anymore, it's been hijacked by religious fascists. True liberalism doesn't exist in this country, either. The "liberals" in our government are actually centrists, if not center-right, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, who is damn near a socialist.

If the axiom were true however, and one had to choose either being brainless or heartless, I'd rather be brainless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was mainly joking. The discussion made me think of that. The quote I was actually using was, oddly enough, from this German film I saw called "The Edukators" (Farin, you ever heard of it?). That's what they said.

I think it's kind of stupid too. What the quote lacks is that the ones who have both are the independents ;)

And Bernie Sanders is my boy! One of the two independents in Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather be brainless than heartless.

And do you honestly think that expanding entitlement roles by 20% over three years, statutory confiscation of available investment dollars, lowering a nation's fiscal accountability rating and increasing the scope and power of the federal government is showing heart?

I'll keep my brain, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have G.W. Bush and his cronies to thank for all of that mess they made due to their irresponsible [and quite possibly un-American] policies that won't get cleaned up for many more years. The federal govt. needs to go back to serving the general interests of U.S. citizens rather than catering to the filthy, stinkin' rich the way it has been in the last 30 years :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×