Is Obama Divisive? Let’s Talk …
Posted by: Blue Collar Muse in 1st Amendment, Anti Dictionary Democrats, Blogging, Business, Common Sense, Conservative, Economics, Individual Responsibility, Liberal, Lower Taxes, Not My President, Obama-Nation, Racism, TaxesI started out commenting on a Lefty blog which strenuously disagrees with me on my stand that Obama is not my President. A commenter took exception to my contention
… Obama will be the President; but he will never be my President. Obama wants what he is unwilling to give. To get the job, Obama divided us. Now on the job, he yearns for unity’s strength. But leopards don’t change their spots. As he ran, so will he govern.
As proof of Obama’s unifying ability, the commenter, Ice, offered
“Obama divided us” — patently false, since Obama united us into a majority, the first majority to elect a Democrat since ‘76. Also demonstrably false, in that Obama’s rhetoric was uniting, and his plans and specifics were both appealing to the majority and specifically aimed at the majority.
I responded with the following and thought to bring it back here to get my readers’ take on the matter. I have edited my comment to keep it relevant to the discussion at hand. The offer I make Ice is open to any reader who disagrees with me. Any parties interested in adding support to my contention are welcome to do so as well. Discussion to take place in Comments. Please abide by the rules as outlined in the post.
Ice -
As far as Obama uniting or dividing us. I will grant you that he won the election. He even did so by being the first Democrat in 50 years or so to win with over 50% of the vote. Nice to finally have a majority on your side for once, I’m sure. But a 52-48 victory, while a majority is hardly evidence of Unity. It is still true that almost half of the country did NOT vote for him – tens of millions of people.
The reasons they did not, with apologies to your completely unsupported assertions that 5% of those voting against BO (more in some states) did so because of race, are grounded in issues and policies. It is here that Obama divides America. That divide is a scary one because a large portion of it is a divide between the “Producers” and the “Give me what you Produce-ers”.
Obama’s clearly Socialist leanings driving his “Spread the Wealth” ideology are divisive. And unnecessary. This is America (for a little while longer, anyway). Anyone can be whatever they want – isn’t that part of Obama’s draw? Why then shoot for the brass ring of “I’ll take whatever Government can coerce from Ken to give to me” and ignore the far more valuable gold ring of “I’ll work hard and make my own way and enjoy the fruits of my own labor”? Isn’t that what Barack, your hero, did? Why not emulate him, and by extension the Right wing principle of self reliance? Unless you believe the Left wing principle that you are not capable of succeeding on your own and have to be propped up by Government taking from your betters to support you in your inability.
I don’t happen to believe that. So many of BO’s supporters do. They voted “Gimmes” for themselves without considering the meaning of their vote. Or worse, because they actually agreed with the meaning of their vote.
Success is a heady thing. Once you’ve had a taste, it lingers for a while. You begin to play the “What if?” game. “I’ve done well in THIS area. What if I do as well over there? Or over there?” It is Obama that doesn’t want you thinking that way, not me or the Right. We want you taking counsel of your dreams! We want you to think about what could be instead of what is! We want you to be unsatisfied with your current state and strive for something better – as much better as you can imagine. We just think you should do it yourself – and then enjoy the fruits of your efforts knowing that you earned and deserved your success. It wasn’t taken from someone else who earned it and deserved it and given to you who has not.
To put forth effort, successful or not, to draw people to yourself based on that premise, sows division within the country that may take years or generations to wash out. Unlike most you may encounter, I am more than willing to debate you – on the issues, on the facts. I won’t be disrespectful or dismissive to you unless you treat me that way first. You interested? Be careful – the truth is not really on your side, here.
I’ve outlined one issue by which Obama has divided us. You can respond by showing how this is not divisive. But stick to the issue of how taking what is mine by force to give to someone else who has not earned it is not divisive. I’d be even more fascinated to see you turn this into something unifying.
Once we’ve finished this one, you can choose a point on which you believe Obama has brought unity to the country and we can debate that. Fair enough? (Editor’s note: This offer was made to Ice, elseblog. If this post generates intelligent debate without snark, I’ll extend that offer to some here.)
No more assumptions about my motives, no more making unsupportable claims, no more emotional responses with no factual foundations … just a discussion of the issues. If you think you can do that … I LOVE that sort of thing. I have to say it’s because most people end up finding they prefer the end results of Conservative principles more than Liberal ones. That’s not my fault … It’s just the nature of the discussion …
You game?
Blue Collar Muse
Popularity: 54% [?]
Tags: , Barack Obama, Divisive, National Unity, Obama as Unifier, Obama Dividing the Country, Obama's Majority, Obama's Mandate, Socialism, Spread the Wealth
Entries (RSS)
November 12th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Where to begin…
Well, how ’bout the beginning, i suppose. Obama has no plans to take all of your money and give it to people who do not work. That is simply incorrect. Basing your whole ‘divisive because of fiscal policy’ argument on the tax code still leaves at least 95% of America UNITED on the side of the coin that will simply get a tax break. as I understand mathematics, 95% is appreciably greater than 50%. So enough with the ’socialism’ nonsense as a divsive force. Basically everyone i know, and you know, will see LESS taxes. as well it should be. (I would futher argue that the ranks of the rich should be delighted to pay that ‘extra’ 3%, for the simple fact that america provided them with the opportunity to achieve that measure of success… but that is a discourse for another day)
The other way in which Obama will be far less divisive than recent administrations is the intellect and desire to understand issues. W has of course been a catastrophe, for the simple reason that he hears only what he wants to hear and knows only what he has heard. Obama has thus far demonstrated the ability to listen, learn, and adapt. This is a characteristic that I for one adore seeing in a leader.
So, while I am not a huge fan of the healthcare plan (as well as others too numerous to discuss, as they are unrelated to the central topic at hand) I am united behind the Blue team this tmie around. Obama is simply smart enough to surround himself with a real team, face the real issues head on, and make a difference.
I would posit that the only dividers remaining in America are the hardcore neo-cons (Kristol/Rush/Hannity and their ilk) who are doing their level best to make nonsense stick to Obama simply because their team lost. They are the ones who supply vituperative and invective as opposed to any real analysis of issues… (”Is Obama a cannibal? Find out at 11, right here on FauxNews!”)
So.. what is it that you are unclear on here? I am a well-read, well educated american. I have read all available information, and see no cues that would lead me to believe that somehow we only have 4 years until we all become the chuds and the morlocks, doomed to fight forever in a circular firing squad of doom.
- BeerBaron
November 12th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I am a well-read, well educated american. I have read all available information
You might want to explain how 95% will get a tax break when there is more than 5% presently not paying any taxes, including FICA. Of course that is assuming that you really believe that someone who voted 19 times for tax increases on 42,000 a year salaries really means what he says.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Would Obama have been elected if the following were removed?
1.The MSM’s love affair with BHO
2.Fraudulant monetary contributions through his unsecure website
3.ACORN’s illegal activities
4.John McCain (and a real Republican candidate was actually nominated and tried to win)
November 13th, 2008 at 9:00 am
In order:
s1c - it is 95 OF TAXPAYERS. If you pay nothing, you still pay nothing. I am certain you knew this and are just playing dumb for the sake of argument… but try harder next time. And of course I believe him. This is one of those things that I trust him on (you know, in the spirit of supporting the President? that thing we are talking about? if you just decided that you will not believe him long before the oath is even taken, then dont.. but then you are the divisive one, not Obama.
ebayer1 -
Point by point, i suppose…
1. Obama UNITED the MSM behind a strong unifying candidate. Seems to prove the exact opposite of your point.
2. Nobody can stop visa gift cards. McCain/Palin took them too. Just how the world works. I assume that if you were clever enough to write software to fix that you would have…. and again irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
3. I am tempted to make an ad honimem attack on your higher brain functions, but i will resist long enough to correct you: ACORN did nothing illegal. They are required BY LAW to submit all registrations they receive. So, if a volunteer fill out a form for Mickey Mouse, they must BY LAW submit it. I remind you that they are REGISTRATIONS, not VOTES… Mickey Mouse is not voting on election day. Stop watching FoxNews and actually try to learn something about what you are saying. Please.
4. I ask you what you define as a ‘real’ conservative candidate. Someone of teh Buckley mold, or a jesus-based social conservative? Obviously I myself would LOVE a Buckley-syle conservatrive (although I dont really know of any these days…) A jesus-based social conservative would have been FAR more divisive than Obama. . . at least he doesn’t pray for the fiery death of all Jews and such… and again irrelevant to the discussion of Obama’s supposed divisiveness.
Is anyone on the blog capable of actually discussing a topic put forth, or do we all just rehash what Sean Hannity said last night?
I had higher hopes for this crowd… oh well.
- BeerBaron
November 13th, 2008 at 10:38 am
@BeerBaron -
As it is when Obama makes it, your use of the 95% figure is both alluring and misleading. As noted in this WSJ article, Obama’s “tax cuts” are for 95% of “working families”, not taxpayers. Would that 95% of taxpayers under your definition of them (which is also mine, by the way) WOULD get a real tax CUT!
Unfortunately, even the term “tax cut” is misused by Obama. Quoting from the WSJ article,
Regardless of how Mr. Obama spins his intent, the practical reality of implementing his stated plan will be to take HUGE sums from the top 5% of taxPAYERS to give to vast numbers of non-taxPAYERS. The Tax Foundation’s analysis of both Obama and McCain’s plans shows that, while both candidates would have increased the number of Americans paying less or no tax, the manner in which they would do it is vastly different.
The bulk of McCain’s tax reduction would have come in the form of a tax credit for those people purchasing their own Health Care. As I understand it, if the family doesn’t get the Health Care, no Credit. Obama’s plan, however, is heavy on refundables. Thus, simply by existing and having certain characteristics, a person or family, whether or not they actually pay taxes, can get what is usually erroneously called a “tax refund”. The lower ends of the taxpayer scale can actually MAKE money.
This is NOT a tax refund. This is welfare. Another common characteristic of these folks at the lower end of the economic spectrum is that they can vote. And Obama appealed directly to them with his pandering. Vote for me and I will give you money and a host of other things that other people will have to pay for. This is the reality that existed. It is also the basis of a very real division in the nation.
Obama is anything but stupid. He knows this and doesn’t care. He won, as have Democrats for years, by fostering hatred, jealousy, envy and disrespect for the people who are the economic engine of this nation. My concern and that of many of my likeminded associates is that once we get to the point where over 50% of the electorate is positioned such that they can vote themselves a livelihood with little effort beyond showing up at the polls every two years, the nation will enter a death spiral from which it cannot recover.
As was said of Rome, “When the people found they could vote themselves bread and circuses, they did so until there was nothing left of either!”
The Tax Foundation’s report also notes that such “refundables” and their phase out provisions (higher income earners don’t qualify for the “cuts”) are fundamentally unsound and damaging to the Economy in purely fiscal ways beyond the division they foster.
It matters not to me WHO proposes such nonsense or from which party they hail. It is wrong, unfair, fiscally stupid and divisive. If you would like to source some articles, studies, economic models and such that support your view for critique, please feel free to do so. However, your mere contention, avowed to be based in being well read and not merely repeating the talking points of the Right, that Obama is going to actually cut taxes for basically the entire country yet keep the promises of expanded Government, and unify the country behind this bold plan - well, it’s patent nonsense - and it remains divisive.
Your thoughts?
November 13th, 2008 at 11:34 am
BCM -
You can source all your data from a supply-side standpoint if you like, it simply turns out that not everyone agrees w/ supply-side economic theories (my classical training was in economics (decision theory) so i do in fact know what i am talking about…) But in a nutshell, they call econimics the ‘dismal science’ for a reason - there are no fixed variables. All of the data on your tax foundation site is a guess/estimation/what have you. But taking all of it as-read, i will formulate a response as best i can…
To begin, the numbers you are talking about are incredibly small. the EITC and the child credit are literally infinitesimal next to the US tax bas as a whole. So pretneding that vast sums are going to be reallocated is simply misgiuded. If you have an ftp i can send you a .pdf of some technical specs on the amounts involved. But suffice it to say that none of those will make or break anyone’s lives.
When you posit “He won, as have Democrats for years, by fostering hatred, jealousy, envy and disrespect for the people who are the economic engine of this nation.” in a post about divisiveness i almost have to laugh; were those people truly all about being AMERICA’s engine they would stop sheltering all their $ offshore and shipping jobs overseas. I would counter that the GOP wins, by comparison, by driving wedges into the american people deliberately over a whole host of issues. I bet you and i don’t agree on Roe or on Schaivo or gay rights, or on myriad other social issues that are completely irrelevant to governing a country, but ’social issues’ are used as a bludgeon to calim the moral high ground and roll over anyone who disagrees. Fact. Irrefutable fact. Obama has mad eno claims ot divide poeple over such things and has in fact done a arguably heroic job trying to straddle that fence and keep people engaged in the process.
So, i have to say that trying to make this all about ’socialism’ or whatever the term of art is in the loony-right blogosphere at the moment, is intellectually dishonest. People who can afford to pay more pay more, and people who pay nothing keep paying nothing. Even if the uber-poor get a little extra it amounts to a LITTLE. who cares? We are building a COUNTRY here - people all have to play along. And guess who it was that said that those people who can afford it should pay more than their equal share? (It was Adam Smith - I doubt you or i have the cojones to claim more potent intellect or insight than the father of our economic system that you seem to be so willing to fight for…?)
ANyway, feel like you are being slighted all you like, but making bold statements about divisiveness based on a supply-side website months before Obama takes office is simply deciding that you don’t like him and have decided to make noise before you have a single hard data point.
I’m clearly correct. If i had to choose between patience, Adam Smith, and hope for the future versus blithely decrying someone without a single policy act to hang it on… who is choosing to be divisive, and who is trying to embrace the future? Im just saying…
So to be true to your own statement about not caring which party and such; i challenge you to stop playing possum and making blanket statements and actually observe what happens. A year from now, if you are right and our bread and circuses are all gone, you get to say “i told you so…” but if we regain a measure of economic power and nobody in the billionaire tax bracket is sleeping on the streets shooting smack, then i believe that honor would go to me…
- BeerBaron
November 13th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
@BeerBaron -
Your statements and premises are flawed.
The estimates from the Tax Foundation reference 15 or 16 million people. That is 5% of our population. Adding that many people to the roll of those paying no tax yet getting money back and shifting that burden to the remaining taxpayers is not insignificant.
It may be Supply Side, and I have asked you to present data refuting my contentions, but you have dismissed my arguments as they come from a model you don’t like but haven’t backed up your words with figures or source.
I’m unfamiliar with the Smith quote you reference. I’d like to see where it is to find exactly what it means. In any event, even if it means exactly what you say it does, the rich have been paying more than their fair share for ages. All Democrats do is ask them to pay more and more and more. Remember the top tax rates on the wealthy before Reagan?
Regarding your dismay at money and jobs moving offshore, that, too is a response to Democratic policies (tax, regulatory and others). If the Democrats (and far too many forgetful Republicans) would remember we’re a Capitalistic, Free Market nation and not a Communist Socialistic nation, that money and those jobs would be here. The proof is in the pudding. What happened to Government revenues and the Economy under Carter? What happened under Reagan? What was the difference.
Your final contention that we should all rally around Obama because he is trying real hard is nice, but an unwise approach to just about any decision making process you might like to note biz, gov’t or otherwise.
We have the examples of Ireland, New Zealand, Russia, not to mention the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts (real cuts, not semantic sleight of hand) to prove that income rises across the board and the national Economy grows deep and wide under LOW taxes. This gives everyone, low income to high income the opportunity to get out and work on their dreams. You cannot provide even a single example of taxing an Economy into prosperity although there are many where Economies are taxed to death.
Obama’s plan is to raise taxes. He has stated plans to give this money to many people. I’m not the one speaking in hypothetical terms. All of this is public and historical record. That you would, in what I presume is a serious question, ask me to ignore all of this evidence and believe that despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama is going to be the one to make Black into White, is mind boggling. Why even bother having elections at all? Why bother to discuss issues. Obama is talking a good game - that’s all that counts.
You cannot be serious, but I sense that you really are. Something isn’t adding up. Either you know all of this as well and don’t care, ala Obama and the Left, or you aren’t as up on things as you would like me to believe. It doesn’t matter which, but something doesn’t fit.
Perhaps the key is your continually repeated opinion that people should be happy to pay more in taxes to a Government that provides so much. Leaving the Constitutional argument against that out of the way for the moment, I’ll observe that if providing something for others is the key to generating gratitude, the Government is the last place anyone should be expressing gratitude. By definition, Government has nothing it hasn’t first taken from a real taxpayer … by your own admission - the wealthy.
By your own words, we should be thanking the wealthy, not the Governement for all of our blessings. We should be making sure they are happy, too, so they don’t take all their marbles and go play somewhere else. We owe a lot to these wealthy and ought to be grateful to them. In fact, we should not have any problems walking into our boss’s office this afternoon and thanking him or here for their provision of a job which provides so much to so many.
Welcome to the Conservative side of the room …
November 13th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
BCM -
Adorable. You really are going to pretend that you (and can’t forget the self-serving rightwing websites) really do think you are smarter than Adam Smith? Fine… but that means I am done talking to you as if you are a reasonable person. The quote is from The Wealth of Nations, Book V Chapter II Pt II. It is free online. Go read it. And then tell me why you think your personal opinion has more weight than the father of modern economics. (You going to call Adfam Smith a socialist too? I bet even some hard-right people would find that powerfully offensive…)
Point 2: It is all irrelavant. Obama WON already. Now you have to either suck it up and move on, or (what? secede from the union and go hang with the Palins?)
Supply-side, fake-free-market policies have been in effect for the last 8 years - how’s that working out for you? Time to either get on board or get out of the way. Complaining form the sidelines is pointless.
What it all boils down to is we ALL lack COMPLETE INFORMATION. So pretending that your opinion , or mine, has any relevance is an exercise in futility. Make noises in a vacuum all you like, but that is not discourse, nor is it intellectualism. It is just bloviating.
Go read Adam Smith.
- BB
November 13th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
@BeerBaron -
Thanks for the reference for Smith. I will go read it. And I never said I was brighter than Smith. I merely observed that if his quote is exactly as you say it is, then we’ve been following that for years. The top 5% of the income earners pay something like 40% of the taxes. We’re already doing the Smith thing. Time to add some other things to the mix - enough of the one note symphonies …
Perhaps you are thinking of someone else. I never said Obama didn’t win. Just that his plans will be disastrous for the nation. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. And if you think that I believe what George Bush has been doing for the last 8 years, domestically, with Medicaid, Education, the Bailout and more is Supply Side, Small Government, Conservative Economics that should have turned our country into a Capitalist paradise, you haven’t been reading my stuff much.
Obama said he didn’t want 4 more years of Bush. What was he referring to? Certainly not Bush’s Economic policy. Unless you are saying Obama would have opposed the Medicaid spending, the Education spending, the Bailout and such. I know they differed on the war. But Obama ignored the Democratic roots of the Housing crisis and blamed it all on Bush. Well, he is President now and it’s all on him. He was intentionally disingenuous in blaming Bush and insinuating he was the opposite. In fact, he’ll be worse than Bush on Economics. Bush spent a heck of a lot more. But he never raised taxes.
Finally, if you truly believe our opinions have no relevance, then why are you here (although I caught your possible intent to not come back)? I’m not uselessly complaining from the sidelines. I’m part of the not-so-loyal opposition. I’m here to put the warning in plain view … this is what will happen. If the Economy blooms under Obama … I’ll be happy to write that I was wrong. If Obama “Carters” the Economy, I’ll be telling you I was right and that we need more of what I think and less of your ideas.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:24 am
BCM-
Bravo!!
Well said!
November 14th, 2008 at 9:56 am
BCM -
You are correct, I had thought I had the measure of you and didn’t plan to return (but a confluence of delayed meetings and morbid curiosity brought me back - and I am glad I did). I must admit, you win the award for the most rational and well-written righty I have played with in a long, long while. I appreciate both the vigor and clarity of your arguments (not to mention that fact that these seem to be your opinions rather then Sean Hannity’s
More folks like you would do great things for the national discourse.
I would still posit that “Just that his plans will be disastrous for the nation. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. ” is a rather strange statement - this is all in the future. ambiguous and ephemeral. Providing evidence for something that has not yet happened is, in the universe i occupy, an impossibility… which applies to both your cries of doom, and my inability to factually defend the future.
Oh, and when i talk about supply-side economics, I am talking specifically about the Laffer curve (Click HERE for more data)
This is the economic principle that the GOP continually points to when cutting taxes all willy-nilly - the problem I have with it is that it never seems to address the point of decreasing returns. None of these models are exponential; there is at some point when cutting more taxes is unequivocally BAD. I am of the mind that between giant unnecessary subsidy-cuts for big oil (the family business, so i have a bit of insight) and equally giant and equally unnecessary cuts for the uber-rich, we are self-defeating. Obama has inherited the largest problem in economic history… America needs liquid capital and it must come from someplace. Would you rather “force” the incredibly wealthy to wait an extra bonus check to add that gold-plated bar to their LearJet, or borrow it from China and screw the next generation? (You yourself said “Bush spent a heck of a lot more. But he never raised taxes.” - Is that not FAR more frightening? Deficit spending is not working out for the great unwashed public (see: “Credit crisis eats amercia alive”), and America itself is borrowing amounts that are incomprehensible and forcing future generations to pick up the pieces.)
This has become about the lesser of 2 evils, not about anything else… and I think it is that big picture that I am other Obama supporters are seeing, that perhaps the other side of the aisle is not. Investing money in the future, be it healthcare going from treatment to prevention, or investing Apollo-style in energy independence, or what have you) is a real investment in America’s future. Rich guys with giant bank account accrueing interest overseas is NOT going to result in that future for America. Time for some teamwork here, guys.
We have reached a point where if we want to return America to what its promise is, we need drastic, major change. Cutting more taxes on the wealthiest 1% and hoping that somehow this time it works is quite plainly futile. Trying something new when faced with unprecedented challenges is a rational course of action, from my perspective.
Thoughts?
- BeerBaron
November 14th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
BeerBaron,
I have a problem with your statement saying Obama united MSM. There was nothing united about it. In case you haven’t figured it out, the media shouldn’t be endorsing a candidate over the other.
That gives “we the people” a biased report of the candidates. MSM failed to inform Americans of extremely valuable information about Obama. Any attempts to get this information out to the public were thwarted. Anyone who attempted to dig into his past and records were called racists.
There was a time when what Obama is involved with would be called being a traitor to the United States.
Obama is causing division in America, but the most disturbing thing he stands for is the genocide of babies. (Population control and profits)
During the Biden and Palin debate, both candidates claimed they are against homosexual marriage, yet, Obama clearly supports them. He’s created a symbol for them. He allows churches to be invaded by them. If anyone were to swarm a homosexual meeting and do to them what they do to Christians, we would be arrested and hate crimes would be screaming out in MSM. Yet, the media remains silent when the hate crimes are against Christians.
Democrats scream out “INTOLERANT” of anyone who has a different view than them, as if their view is the only way that’s acceptable, yet, they themselves are intolerant and violent and out of control.
In my honest opinion, I believe Obama wants this division to take place. It sets the stage for martial law and dictatorship.
I believe the majority of America elected a traitor into office, and MSM supports it. Yes, we are divided, and that was the goal.
MSM is owned by the corporations who control the politicians and judges. I am in several Georgia courts right now and am learning first hand what power corporations have over the courts. The courts have a commercial interest in the corporations. Congress have a commercial interest in the corporations. The media has a commercial interest in the corporations.
Corporations, both domestic and foreign, wanted a president who would call for the globalization of citizens.
That is the biggest division that Obama has created. He is taking away our sovereignty as a free nation and forcing us to be global citizens, and has plans to force our youth to serve him. You don’t call for a volunteer force by MANDATING it. Mandating something takes away free will. Why does Obama need a civilian force that is greater than our combined military and equally funded?
What’s next? Does he plan to MANDATE prayer 5 times a day, and use the youth security force to execute us if we don’t comply?
We are forced to allow Muslim religion in our military and setting up their mosques in our cities, but Christianity is removed, yet, for Islam, no one is screaming “separation of church and state”.
We are a divided nation. That was the goal.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Wow SharkGirl… you are exactly the kind of people that i fear as a member of the populace. Far from the rational discourse of our host, you are just spouting talking points. I’ll correct a few of your more egregious misstatements, but after that it is up to you to open your mind…
The MSM united behind Obama because they report on what the American people are thinking and doing. If people had actually thought, en masse, that Obama was a Muslim/Communist/Marxist/Terrorist/Cannibal, then those outside the FauxNews channel would have reported it. But since it was nonsense and recognized as such my most everyone, they did not report it. When one party is clearly more intelligent and more equipped to lead the country, that is simply a statement of fact. If the GOP had run a more erudite ticket, it would have been easier to ‘play fair’, but when you have someone as ill-educated and intellectually incurious as Palin on your ticket there is little to say in her defense.
As far as your comical genocide comment, Roe will NEVER be overturned. I know your narrow religious dogma forces you to think in narrow dogmatic terms, but to those of us with a more discerning worldview it is clear that abortion is not a real issue. Want to talk about sex education? Cool. Want to discuss the various options besides abortion available to the people? Also fine. But there will always be abortions needed for one reason or another (and McC’s contemptuous “health of the mother’ comment during the debate was about the most offensive thing i can remember hearing from a political seeking the highest office) If your religion says abortion is unacceptable, then don’t have one. But not everyone grooves on jesus the way you do. Remember that freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
You go off on a long-winded rant about gay marriage (which i support; discriminating against gays is the same as discriminating against blacks, or women, or any other group. Bigotry, plain and simple.) Playing the victim when white christians have been in control literally FOREVER is just intellectually dishonest. You are NOT the victim. Ever. Maybe we aren’t forced to pray in schools or recite the 10 commandments in court, but that is not a bad thing, it is America.
As far as martial law and dictatorship, I have to ask what on earth you are consuming as media. Have you ever read a book that want the bible? There is no basis for that statement, at all. And seriously, after W expanded Executive power farther than ever before, rescinded Habeas Corpus, allowed torture, and on and on.. you are afraid of OBAMA? You marginalize yourself with such statements.
A final point before i write you off as a crazy and ignore you: “…forcing us to be global citizens, and has plans to force our youth to serve him”
We ARE global citizens, in case you were somehow unaware that America is indeed located here on Earth. Pretending that there is merit to whatever strange isolationist view it is you are unclearly espousing is nonsense. And “forcing the youth to serve him”? A Green Corps that reduces the demands for foreign energy is a GOOD THING. There are literally MILLIONS of people who WANT to help. I have no idea what version of the world it is you see when you close your eyes, but the 1950’s all chrisitan-white-suburban Donna Reid Show is gone forever. Either get with the times and embrace that fact that things do in fact change, or get out of the way so the people who are clever enough to know the truth of that statement can drag you, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the 21st century.
The division that you are seeing is the division between the smart people who are aware of ‘reality’, and those who hear only what they want to hear and know only what they have heard. Which group are you in?
- BeerBaron
November 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
You can’t be reasoned with BeerBaron. Anyone who condones the murder of babies and doesn’t want Roe v. Wade overturned, just can’t be reasoned with.
Your best bet is to put me on ignore. Speaking of long winded…have you counted the characters in your reply lately? *grin*
November 14th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
SharkGirl -
As to length, I reply with available data and reasoned argument. And please, for the love of god, acknowledge that your religious views are NOT shared by everyone (and the number of those that do is shrinking). This is where the far-right loses many people like… me for example, that otherwise hold with traditional FISCAL conservative values. The social conservatism, based on hokey ancient superstition, is where the smart people with whom i generally interact head for the door.
So, I posit that it is you who cannot be ‘reasoned with’. Despite the FACT that your religious views are clearly not universal, you insist upon applying them to everything in the world you interact with. That filter prevents you from assimilating new data. You will think the same thing on Friday that you did on Wednesday, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED ON THURSDAY. Scary stuff…
I’m just saying…
- BB
November 14th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
For the sake of your religious phobia, BeerBaron, we’ll drop that for a moment, okay? Let me give you a legal scenario. Perhaps you can give your so-called available data to come up with a calculated answer. Here we go…ready?
A woman is “punished” by a baby. She wants to get rid of it. Why do I use the word punished? Because Obama did.
“I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” - Barack Obama
Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/barack_obama.html
Back to the scenario:
A woman is punished with a baby and wants to get rid of it. She goes to an abortion clinic and the baby is killed. She is not charged with murder, nor are the chop shop people who murdered the baby. The barbaric practice of shoving a sharp object into the baby’s skull is acceptable, funded and is being fought to be brought back.
Vacuuming the baby and tearing its limbs off is not criminal. In fact, Planned Parenthood gets rich off the practice. If the baby survives, it’s left to die.
HOWEVER,
A mother is punished with an unwanted baby. She leaves the baby in a trash can and is condemned. She’s arrested.
Explain to me why the laws protect a newborn baby and call them a human when a mother abandons her baby, but they don’t consider the newborn a human when abortionists murder them?
I’m very curious how you’re going to manage to reason this one out. Should mothers who abandon their babies, or kill them and put them in garbage cans be allowed to do this legally?
November 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
SG -
Do you really not know the answer? I’ll humor you and play along… Regardless of religious propaganda, late-term abortions are exceedingly rare, and almost always concern the health of the mother. (If it were a choice between myself or a baby I’m choosing me, hands-down). So, having a full-term baby and throwing it in the trash, versus the morning-after pill… are you really trying to comapre the 2? (I think you are just using reducto ad absurdum, but that is a disingenuous argument in this case).
If you want to play what-if, i have one for you: How do you propse we deal with downstream consequences of the Malthusian Imperative?
There are only somany people that can exist on earth. If the anti-education, anti-contraception, anti-abortion religious nuts were in charge, how long would we last? Those of us who remain unconvinced that caring for the Earth is immaterial because magic-sky-father is going to Rapture us all before it becomes a problem, are thinking clearly about the fact that we cannot reproduce at will forever without disastrous consequences.
So is your answer “God is magic, so no worries”?
I bet it is….
- BB
November 14th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
What in the world does it even mean to say that the future president isn’t going to be “your president?”
I mean, I heard some “George Bush is not my president” following 2000, but that was tied into the assertion that Bush had stolen the election. The argument wasn’t “I don’t like him, so he’s not mine,” it was “He’s not legitimately the president-elect, so I refuse to recognize him.” Whether you think that argument was bunk or not, it was still an argument and it made the phrase “not my president” meaningful.
In your case, though, you’re just saying that any president that you don’t like isn’t “yours.” That doesn’t amount to much more than sour grapes that your side lost.
As far as “unity” goes - “unity” shouldn’t mean that everyone votes one way. The idea that we’ll only be united as a country when every election sees someone racking up huge majorities is just silly when applied to a nation as diverse as America is. There will always be liberal-types, conservative-types, libertarian-types, and so on and so forth, representing the variant interests of the population. Those interests are going to lead to different proposed policies, different candidates, and electoral competition.
“Unity” just means that we handle those divisions in a reasonable way. When you propose a conservative policy, I sit down with you to talk about whether it would do good or not, instead of calling you a bigoted Nazi. When I propose a liberal one, you do the same, instead of calling me a wacko socialist. That’s unity that could happen in America. And it’s unity that would do us a lot of good.
But, given that you throw “socialist” around in your post and pretend that liberals are just pipe-dreaming nuts wanting to give everything to everyone, it doesn’t sound like a type of unity that you’d be interested in, claims to the contrary aside.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
@N.S. Allen -
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I really appreciate what you have to say.
I think there are are couple of misconceptions you have about the motivation or intent behind my comments.
The reason that I say Obama is not my President has absolutely nothing to do with my personal feeling for the man. By all accounts he is any number of things which I admire and to which I aspire. He seems a good husband and father for example.
The reason Obama is not my President has everything to do with his policies. Policies that he has been quite clear about throughout the Primary, the General and now, the Transition. Things like Higher Taxes, Larger Government, Reduced Government Transparency, Reduced Individual Liberty and other basic anti-Liberty oriented principles.
I cannot unite behind those things. I believe those things to be both dangerous and destructive. I have consistently provided examples of how they have consistently demonstrated themselves to be so in the past. There is no indication that in an Obama administration they will change into something beneficial.
Despite often being accused of being anti-science and anti-intellectual on the basis of some of my other beliefs, this evaluation is deeply grounded in the scientific method of study. Observe events over time and in varying environments. Observe the consequences of those events. If they are linked, accept the evidence and formulate your next actions based on what you have learned. I don’t need, as another commenter here insists, to wait and see what actually happens under Obama’s administration. Based on extensive, historically verifiable facts, I have a very clear idea of exactly what is going to occur.
The same applies to the term Socialist. If one removes the reputation and connotation of the term from the discussion - especially the negative aspects - Socialism is a definable term. As are American, Right Wing, Democrat and a host of other terms. I have no evidence on which to base calling you a Socialist. I know nothing about you. There is every indication from a variety of sources that Obama is exactly that. That the term carries a negative and un-American connotation in our country is not my fault. But it is another reason why Obama is not my President. You could go a long way toward changing my mind if you can demonstrate to me he is, in fact, not a Socialist.
Once again, you ignore what is for what you’d like it to be when you define Unity as handling divisions in a reasonable way. Not only is that inconsistent with the actual definition of Unity but you yourself reveal the inconsistency when you reference the divisions you seek to unify. Unity is possible within a group if they share some basic premises. Thus, Clinton supporters and Obama supporters can unify around Barack Obama. They have differences but not enough to split them off from the group - that would be division or dis-unity.
I have no such common ground politically with Barack Obama. Practically everything he stands for is anathema to me. Please explain how it is that I am supposed to walk in unity with that. I don’t hate the man. I don’t wish him ill. He is, after all, the President of my country. Why would I do such a thing. But he is not my President, nor can he ever be. Because his plans are going to be bad for everyone. That includes me and you.
It matters not if you agree. It matters not if you can see it. The truth is out there. Plain, evident, available, identifiable, quantifiable truth. Not Right Wing Truth or Left Wing Truth. Truth by nature and definition is absolute. 4+4 is always 8. It is never 7 or 9 - ever.
High taxes; large centrally planned Government; reduced or nonexistent Individual Liberties; Secretive or non-Transparent Government, reduced or nonexistent Private Property Rights - there are historical records of the sorts of Governments that function like this. Democracy and Republic aren’t found on that list. There are historical records of the ends of those sorts of Governmental models. They aren’t good.
Don’t simply believe what I say. But don’t believe what you believe either. Go do the research and see the truth for yourself. No amount of hoping Obama will be different is going to make him different. He has a record. Why should he suddenly be different now that he has the power to impact the whole country, and since that country is the USA - by extension the whole world, instead of just one state? The answer grounded in reality is, he isn’t.
None of this is Right Wing or Left Wing, although the agenda to be enacted is one of them. The evaluation of the consequences of that agenda has nothing to do with whether I am pushing it or not. You can prove me wrong by showing me a single instance of where the ideology and principles by which Obama is motivated have ever brought extensive or long term prosperity to a nation. Just one. Again, the non-partisan truth is, you can’t because one doesn’t exist. There are, however, a host of examples going the other way.
So, what am I supposed to do? Toss off reason? Pretend the Truth doesn’t exist? Get on board and make the best of it? Get mine before you can get yours and so have a fleeting moment or two before it all comes down? Is that what one does when what one loves is in danger?
Or am I merely being true to my principles and pointing out the Emperor over there hasn’t a stitch of clothing on. All the passersby can “Ooooh!” and “Aaaah!” over his brilliance and his charisma and their fervent belief that he can do all that he says. For all the Left’s denial of the appropriateness of passionate faith in the marketplace of dialogue, vesting their hope for change in Barack Obama is more a leap of faith than any Christian ever contemplated.
What I propose is a Unity around the Truth. As in my page ‘Socialism’s Lying Promise’, however, there must be a willingness on your part to see your dreams exposed as the vaporous things they are. Not that they aren’t precious to you and millions like you. I understand they are. But they have no power to bring about what you say you really desire. It is, in point of fact, the other ideology, that will bring your dreams to pass.
It is my sincere prayer that you are one of those able to be honest enough with yourself to examine yourself and make the necessary changes.
Feel free to return here, whether you change or not, to challenge me and keep me consistent. As much as I hate it, my imperfection does stick its head up from time to time and I need to be reminded whenever I’m preaching one thing but practicing another. It’s usually those I find myself at odds with who point it out, generally accompanied with great glee. Me? I’m just glad to get back to the truth and keep on walking …
Thanks again for stopping by.
Ken
November 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am
I think we’re running into a lot of semantic clashes, here, but semantics are pretty important, so:
1. You say that you can’t stand with Obama because you disagree with all of his policies. Fine, then. He’s a president whose policies you generally or even universally oppose, and you’re free to oppose those policies all you like. But he’s the president-elect of the United States of America. He’s going to be the president of the United States of America. You’re an American. Ergo, he is going to be your president.
“He isn’t my president” carries a connotation, if not an out-right denotation, of illegitimacy. You don’t seem to be suggesting that. Rather, you seem to be suggesting that you don’t support the direction he plans to take the country in. So, why not say that, instead of “he’s not my president?” You wouldn’t have to explain a statement like that. It’s simple, to the point, and plainly conveys your meaning.
2. As regards socialism: you’ll have to tell me what you think the term means, before I can prove to you that Obama’s not one. I can tell you that he isn’t a socialist in any of the senses of the term that I’ve encountered outside of political attack ads and the like.
For instance, the two primary strains of socialism that one often hears about are utopian and Marxist socialism. It’s easy to show that Obama is neither. The utopian socialists were all about taking modern society and reshaping it into planned communities - for instance, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, two of the most famous utopian socialists, proposed structuring communities around one, central residence, with everyone living together. They tended to propose things like the outlawing of marriage, the central management of work by the community, children being raised by the community as a whole, and that sort of thing.
The other major alternative is Marxist socialism and its off-shoots. The central tenet of Marxism is that the means of production need to be transferred to the workers. According to Marx, the laborers were eventually going to rise up and take control of all of society, abolishing private property completely.
Whatever you think of Obama’s policies, I think it’s pretty clear that he hasn’t called for the construction of collectivized, utopian communities or for the abolition of private property and proletarian control of the means of production. He just hasn’t, and, hence, he isn’t a Marxist or a utopian socialist.
There are, as I see it, two other, likely alternatives. First, there’s what one might think of as socialism-lite, the sort of socialism you get with a lot of “Social” parties in Europe, today. This type of socialism amounts, basically, to nationalization of industry, like Labour tried in the U.K. Needless to say, Obama hasn’t called for nationalizing our nation’s industries, either. We won’t see government agencies marching into factories to take control, according to what he’s proposed.
Finally, there’s the broadest definition of socialism, the one we hear in the attack ads, “socialism” as, effectively, any kind of government policy that promotes social services or the modern welfare state. Frankly, under this definition, Barack Obama is a socialist. However, so is everyone else that you’re ever going to see elected president anytime soon, because, under this definition, social security and Medicare are socialism, too.
And, as Eisenhower said: “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”
3. Certainly, unity requires that we share some basic premises. I happen to think that just about any American connected to the political process has some premises in common with any other American, though. Presumably, we all think of America as our homeland, and we all desire to see that nation and its people prosper. We’re interested in doing what will be beneficial for America and Americans and in not doing what will harm the two.
Those are some premises that just about every sane citizen plugged into American politics is going to agree upon. We have the potential for unity around those premises - we just haven’t achieved it yet. We haven’t reached the point where we recognize that those shared premises should be the first step in our politics, the admission that we share a common interest in the prosperity of our nation and that we should therefore civilly consider one another’s claims and suggestions. That’s national unity.
That’s not the only kind of unity that we could look for in America, I suppose, but it’s the only unity that we’re going to get. We’re not going to be ideologically unified, beyond that. Neither liberals nor conservatives are going to miraculously abandon their political philosophy any time in the foreseeable future. Urban and rural dwellers won’t magically begin seeing eye to eye. Social conservatives won’t suddenly stop objecting to gay marriage, and gays won’t suddenly stop wanting to get married.
The sort of unity you’re looking for just isn’t going to happen in a modern, developed nation like America. If you’re not willing to settle for my kind of unity, you’re just going to be stuck looking at a divided nation for the rest of your life, because those divisions you’re eying aren’t the result of Obama or Clinton or Bush or anyone else. Those divisions are a result of who we are as a nation. They’re there now, they’ve been there before, and they’ll be there long after Obama’s four or eight years are up. The only way to get rid of them would be to radically restructure American society.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:01 am
An excellent post N.S.Allen - I enjoyed it immensely, and think that your assessment of the unity in america is spot-on. Thanks.
- BB