55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 11:16 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
elected by a large majority of Americans.



Obama was elected by the dumbmasses in America because the silent majority basically boycotted the election.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 11:35 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
but instead elected by a large majority of Americans
.

Actually, it was less then 9 million votes, according to NPR

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08

So I dont know if you want to classify that as a "large majority" or not.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 11:40 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
but instead elected by a large majority of Americans
.

Actually, it was less then 9 million votes, according to NPR

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08

So I dont know if you want to classify that as a "large majority" or not.



I believe it ended up being more than 9 million, almost 9.5, once provisional and overseas ballots were counted, per wikipedia. Not only that, but you also have to view it in terms of total number of voters. In this case, Obama won with a 7% margin.

It was the biggest majority in many years, so yes - I would say 'large majority' is accurate.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 11:53 am
Is there any way that the taxpayers can go after the Republican Party and its members for the cost of the oil spill? They decided that the controls on offshore oil wells should be optional, and the cost of one control, $500,000, was too burdensome for the oil companies.

http://readersupportednews.com/off-site-opinion-section/60-60/1638-dick-cheney-and-the-oil-spill
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 01:47 pm
Here is more evidence that the Odem (i.e., Obamademocrats) are lying thieving gangsters working to reduce our Liberty, our Constitutional Government, and our Capitalist Economy. We shall lawfully remove the Odem from our federal government.
Quote:

The Scolder-in-Chief is at it again. The President's speech at the University of Michigan commencement ceremony over the weekend was, as analyst Greg Knapp described it, a "self serving, political speech chastising Americans who disagree with his ideas and policies that are leading us to even bigger government."

In his speech, Obama warned that today's political
discourse can "send signals to the most extreme
elements of our society that perhaps violence
is a justifiable response."

Instead of dealing with the legitimate reasons why, according to a recent Pew Research poll, 80% of Americans now deeply distrust our federal government, Obama once again launched an attack against... the people of the United States!
...

http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=27627&RID=23256627

okie
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 02:36 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, Obama launches attacks against the people because he does not like this country, nor does he like the people that produce. He thinks this country is unfair, he has an inherent dislike for businesses that produce virtually everything we consume, and therefore he appeals to the nonproducers and the losers that are his voters.
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 02:50 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
...the nonproducers and the losers that are his voters.


The looters and the moochers.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  3  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 02:56 pm
@okie,
What Obama said:
Quote:
Now, the second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate. These arguments we're having over government and health care and war and taxes--these are serious arguments. They should arouse people's passions, and it's important for everybody to join in the debate, with all the vigor that the maintenance of a free people requires.

But we can't expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question somebody's views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like "socialists" and "Soviet-style takeover" and "fascist" and "right-wing nut" - that may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, our political opponents, to authoritarian, even murderous regimes.

Now, we've seen this kind of politics in the past. It's been practiced by both fringes of the ideological spectrum, by the left and the right, since our nation's birth. But it's starting to creep into the center of our discourse. And the problem with it is not the hurt feelings or the bruised egos of the public officials who are criticized. Remember, they signed up for it. Michelle always reminds me of that. The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning--since, after all, why should we listen to a "fascist," or a "socialist," or a "right-wing nut," or a left-wing nut"?

It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate, the one we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.


What okie takes away from that:
Quote:
Obama launches attacks against the people because he does not like this country


It's almost too ironic. Obama argues for a basic level of civility, criticizes both the left and the right for over-the-top rhetoric, and says that this makes it nearly impossible for people to sit down at the same table and hash things out, and the reaction to this is: over-the-top rhetoric.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 03:12 pm
@old europe,
Quote:

It's almost too ironic.


Almost? He was dead on. He could easily have been describing many people here.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 04:00 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bull crap. Greece is a result of financial trickery and greed, a compact between those who run the Country and the businesses who aided their fraud - likely knowingly. You just seek to turn their issue into a denouncement of political beliefs opposite of yours - you've been going on about this a lot lately.
Perhaps you should check your facts here. The Greek economy is distinguished not by the success of its corporations, but rather by an unusually large and bloated public sector - relatively speaking the largest in the EU. The financial trickery was done, not by their corporations, but by populist left wing governments pandering to their captive constituent groups, chiefly the government employees who are now rioting and conducting general strikes to turn back the needed constraints on their gravy train.

No one was really fooled by the deceit and trickery of the previous governments. French and German banks hold about two thirds of the Greek public debt. That Greek governments have long been cooking their books and reporting falsified data to the EU brueaucrats was surely well known to the French and Germans who were lending them the money to carry on their political games and illusions.

In any event the Greek policies have bred a population more concerned about their "entitlements" than just who will pay for them. It now turns out that their former donors are no longer willing to foot the bill.

I would also add that the government we currently have certainly wasn't 'appointed' in any fashion, let alone self-appointed; but instead elected by a large majority of Americans.

Cycloptichorn
[/quote]
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 04:12 pm
@georgeob1,
This doesn't contradict what I wrote at all, George.

Whose greed initiated the trickery? The Greek government.

Whose greed allowed the trickery to happen? French and German banks (the businesses I mentioned), who likely knew all along what was going on and simply didn't give a ****. Not to mention Goldman, who had their hand in it as well.

A more careful reading of my post will reveal to you that I never once mentioned Greek Corporations at all.

Your assertion seems to be that the problems in Greece are an indication of a failure of their social system. I assert that the problems are much more due to the lies that both the government and banks were jointly entering into. Now, you can say that the government felt they had to do that in order to protect their position, and there's an argument that could be made there. But that's not proof in any way of the essential failure of their social system; instead, it's a failure of their government, who attempted to use secrecy rather than openness.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 04:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your assertion seems to be that the problems in Greece are an indication of a failure of their social system. I assert that the problems are much more due to the lies that both the government and banks were jointly entering into. Now, you can say that the government felt they had to do that in order to protect their position, and there's an argument that could be made there. But that's not proof in any way of the essential failure of their social system; instead, it's a failure of their government, who attempted to use secrecy rather than openness.

Cycloptichorn


Let me then be more specific. A succession of left wing Greek governments has systematically indulged in deficit spending and duplicitous accounting to sustain a social welfare systen they could not afford, but which organized political groups in the country demanded. The governments in question used the maintenance and expansion of these programs as a key political issue to keep themselves in power. Further they knowingly disguised their increasingly precarious situation to both the Greek people and EU bureaucrats who, as you inferred, were all too willing to be deceived.

The game would have continued indefinately were it not for the banks and financial institutions (the evil corporations in your lexicon) which had been lending Greece the money but which became increasingly aware of the risk of sovereign default and lowered their bid prices on Greek national bonds (thereby in effect raising the interest rate).

The underlying problem here of populations addicted to social welfare systems their economic productivity does not enable them to sustain is endemic throughout the EU. Indeed the "European Model" social; & economic system about which they brag so much and compare contemptuously to the "American Model" of freer labor markets, greater individual responsibility and greater income variability is itself the underlying culprit. The EU is intervening to bail out the Greeks to prevent further spread of a crisis that could easily become more widespread (and in the case of France and Germany to save their own banks). The dilemma they face is the accelerating demographic collapse of most nations in the EU. Belgium, Germany, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia all have declining populations, and the others aren't far behind (except France, the Netherlands and the Scandanavian countries, which have much more favorable population distributions. Even if temporary economic fixes are found to resolve today's crisis the underlying crisis of ageing populations will soon enough bring the whole system down.

The sad and ironic fact is that our misguided government is foolishly trying to impose the European model on us just as its inherent contradictions become manifest in Europe
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:12 pm
@georgeob1,
As I have to check papers all day, I am not plowing through your syntax but I will say this:

if people are discriminated against because of they are too old and if they are prevented from filing for their full social security benefit because they are too young, what is the recourse?

I graduated with my second master's degree at age 50. I had a couple of very reasonable career paths in mind and thought they would be open to me. In two years, I sent out more than 1,000 resumes. I thought about the difference between me and a traditional graduate and decided that, besides age, the difference was that I had not interned. To make a long story short, I sued an iconic MA company for telling me to my face that internships are for 23 year olds and that they could not have older people at the company.

Had the person shut up or spoken intelligently, I would never have sued them.

I wasn't the only one who sued the firm for the same reason. Two suits both of which the company lost. Both of which were heard through the auspices of the Commonwealth of MA.

0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:12 pm
@H2O MAN,
So, how much welfare do you collect?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes, but qualified people should be hired. I have heard from several management types that one hire in five is good. What about the people who are not hired because they are over 50?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:17 pm
@old europe,
Don't expect too much from okie. He has demonstrated time and time again that he does not read well; that his syntax is poor; that he lacks a sense of humor, a sign of intelligence; that he invents definitions for common words then claims his definitions are correct.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:19 pm
The ad accompanying this thread proclaims: Ann Coulter -- Free!

I would say the price is right.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:21 pm
@plainoldme,
Other than all of that, do you like Okie?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:43 pm
@plainoldme,
Well, personally, I don't think one can raise the level of discourse without at least trying to avoid vilification and over-the-top rhetoric oneself.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 08:58 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

It's almost too ironic. Obama argues for a basic level of civility, criticizes both the left and the right for over-the-top rhetoric, and says that this makes it nearly impossible for people to sit down at the same table and hash things out, and the reaction to this is: over-the-top rhetoric.

It would have been nice if Obama would have adopted civility a very long time ago. Instead he admired people like Jeremiah Wright that spewed hatred and blame onto America, and it was obvious that Obama shared much of those beliefs. He also has been friends with folks like Bill Ayers, who had at one time sought to overthrow the country, now that is not much civility, is it oe?

What I have simply done here is to condemn the politics of blaming America, blaming the producers for greed, including businesses, which Obama has been engaged in from Day 1. The quicker we can throw the dividers and blamers out of office and start over, the better off we will be. One of the first things Obama did after gaining office was to demonize the health care industry in this country, and the insurance companies as well, so that he could take it over. Frankly, I am sick of his politics.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.28 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 12:44:48