Obama '08?

@H2O MAN,

The boycott poll was taken 6/4.
A poll right after the GM bankruptcy found 53% thought bailing out GM was a bad idea. 26% said it was a good idea and 21% were unsure.
Of the 53% who said it was a bad idea, 30% said a boycott would be good, 54% said it would not be good and 16% were unsure.
BTW, regarding Rasmussen and their Presidential approval ratings, they do use a 3-day rollover.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

I'm not saying the US Government takeover of GM and Chrysler could not have been avoided. Avoiding it would most likely have resulted in a bankruptcy of both companies at some point during the last year. The question is whether or not you think that that's more desirable than the government stepping in. There are valid arguments to be made either way, but so far I haven't seen you make any kind of argument. You've been mostly content hurling insults and making snide remarks. If you want to make an argument that it would have been best if the government hadn't interfered with the free market, and that somehow GM and Chrysler would have been able to avoid bankruptcy, then go ahead and make that argument. I haven't seen you doing that either.

Also, I'm not you saying that everybody should win or that there aren't any losers, no matter what course of action you take. The point is just that if you advocate a specific course of action, you should at least be capable to accept the most likely consequences. If you're advocating non-interference by the government, then you should at least be able to acknowledge that an ensuing bankruptcy or collapse of both companies would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Take, for example, a look at maporsche's argument, and you'll see that he'd accept the consequences of the course of action he advocates. You, on the other hand, don't seem to be prepared to do just that.

Third, I'm not saying that a company that files for bankruptcy is guaranteed to re-emerge from that. This, on the other hand, flies right in the face of what seems to be your point, namely that the government shouldn't have intervened and that the companies should have been allowed to simply collapse or file for bankruptcy.

However, you still avoided answering the question. So here we go again: do you think that the government shouldn't have intervened? Also, what do you think would have happened. Would GM and Chrysler have magically avoided bankruptcy, or do you accept that both companies simply might have folded and hundreds of thousands of jobs might have been lost?

2 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

However, you still avoided answering the question. So here we go again: do you think that the government shouldn't have intervened? Also, what do you think would have happened. Would GM and Chrysler have magically avoided bankruptcy, or do you accept that both companies simply might have folded and hundreds of thousands of jobs might have been lost?

Once we have let companies get to big to fail we are fucked. We can be held hostage, as we have been with GM and AIG. We had no choice but to spend taxpayer money, but only because of mistakes made that got us to this point. Sadly, we have not learned a damn thing, the government is working to create even larger firms in the financial industry, when it should have been working to break up the largest companies. The extortion attempts will be continuous.

1 Reply

@old europe,

oe, if you were insulted by my remarks you have big problems that you need to face.

Taking a business risk has its rewards and its consequences - all business people know this.
All bankruptcies have consequences... Government involvement in a business
bankruptcy only exacerbates the situation. Accept this fact and move on.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Well, there seem to be several possibilities. One would be to have a powerful Antitrust Division, to counter monopolization of the market and all the negative consequences from that. It just seems that - generally speaking - Americans are not really in favour of this kind of government interference in the free market. Which is really ironic, as strong monopolies seem to be far more detrimental to a free market than government regulation to prevent monopolies. Then there's the option of state ownership or partial state ownership of a specific sector. This makes sense if the sector is thought to be essential to a functioning government. Seems to work at least well enough for a couple of sectors - like the post office, the highway system, the military..... It's fascinating to see how the general public willingly accepts that solution in some sectors, and fundamentally opposes it in other sectors, based on nothing but ideology.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Whether or not I'm insulted by your silly remarks has nothing to do with the fact that you don't seem to be capable of having a conversation with someone without throwing out puerile statements while avoiding the actual subject.

I completely agree with that both running a business and filing for bankruptcy have consequences. The question you're avoiding is whether or not you're advocating this specific course of action for Chrysler and GM.

If you're saying that, in your opinion, GM and Chrysler collapsing under their debt at some point last year would have been preferable to any kind of government involvement, then why not simply say so?

1 Reply

@old europe,

May your blind journey through life be obstruction free.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

See, waterboy? It's just constant bitching from you. You've never actually answered the question. Great debating skill there.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Why would I want to debate someone that can't comprehend the written word ?

oe, you are a waste of bandwidth.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Why would I want to debate someone that can't comprehend the written word ?

Oh, I just wanted to see how long you would keep this up without actually answering the question. I have to admit that you're quite tenacious. And you're still at it. Not bad. You're the man, waterboy.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Did you even ask a pertinent question? What was your question?
What is it that is so important to you oe?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

You still have not detailed what damage it does for America to show humility on the world stage - specifically. None of you have. All you have done is assert, what exactly, regarding the effects of such an attitude?

Come on now, you must have at some point gotten out into the world......when people think that they have an opportunity to get over on you they as a general rule will spend a good deal of energy trying to do just that.

What about Obama showing humility gives the rest of the world the idea they can 'get one over on us?'

How would they then go about 'getting one over on us?'

Quote:

We want the rest of the world to work with America doing stuff that is in Americas best interest, we don't want them trying to figure out how to screw us for their own best interests.

What evidence do you have that this isn't what they have been doing for some time? Verily, it seems that large swathes of the region in question have responded to our belligerence and arrogance by... trying to figure out how to screw us for their best interests.

Quote:

Playing the submissive does not work in economics nor in politics, normally.

Apologizing for past wrongs is not playing the submissive. It's really crazy how screwed up some of you guys are, in your perception of strength.

Apologizing takes strength, not weakness. It is a show of strength, not a capitulation. It costs us nothing to make happy noises and it means a great deal to other people and cultures.

Quote:

Sure, Bush was a neanderthal who caused a lot of damage clubbing things and people as he tried to act like a man, which made America receptive to the submissive leaning Obama. But Obama needs to realize that getting Americans to like him enough to get into office requires a different skill set then looking after America's interests. He shows no indication that he does. Humility is being willing to act human, submissiveness is being willing to be weak or act weak, there is a huge difference between the two.

Do you have any objective evidence that any of Obama's foreign policy has lead to people around the world thinking of the US as 'submissive' or 'weak?' No, you do not.

What a massive case of projection our local, insecure crowd is engaging in. I will repeat again: when you are strong, really strong, you can act however you like and it doesn't ******* matter. You don't need to display a strong face. You don't have to say 'terrorism' or 'America apologizes for nothing' over and over again. Those are statements of the weak, not the strong.

Bush's belligerence was a sign of weakness; Obama's humility, a sign of strength.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@old europe,

OE You need to study the U.S. government more. It is controlled by big business. So does the military industrial complex controll government not the other way around.

1 Reply

@rabel22,

I believe it's a two-way street - or "freeway."

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Did you even ask a pertinent question? What was your question?

I've asked you a couple of times now what you would rather have seen happening - GM and Chrysler collapsing, or the government stepping in.

So far, you haven't answered that question. For your convenience, I'll list your answer so far, though:

H2O MAN wrote:

Is English not a language you are familiar with?

Are you not able to understand how a free market works?

H2O MAN wrote:

Your answers prove that you are not as smart as Palin.

H2O MAN wrote:

Your inability to see what is right in front of you confirms your ignorance.
Your constant efforts to change the subject and play the bitch are not becoming.
You are not worthy of further effort - you are a lost soul and therefore a lost cause.

H2O MAN wrote:

You must be a flaming candy ass if you think I'm a tough guy... or maybe you and
CiCe are the kind of fellas that are looking for a tough guy that will dominate you.
Do both you dream of being slaves and having Master Obama discipline you for being bad?

H2O MAN wrote:

You are obviously blind and probably enjoy being humped by your seeing eye dog.

H2O MAN wrote:

maporsche gets it, but old europe is lost in space without a clue.
Poor, poor pitiful oe.

H2O MAN wrote:

oe, are you trying to say I said something other than what I have said?
Is it customary for you to ignore what is right in front of you and make **** up as you go?
Are you saying the US Government takeover of GM and Chrysler could not have been avoided?
Are you saying everybody should "win" and that there are no longer any "losers"?
Are you saying all companies that file for bankruptcy are incapable of restructuring and emerging from bankruptcy without Obama's meddling?

Are you that ******* ignorant?

H2O MAN wrote:

May your blind journey through life be obstruction free.

H2O MAN wrote:

Why would I want to debate someone that can't comprehend the written word ?

oe, you are a waste of bandwidth.

It's amazing how much time you spend avoiding to answer a simple question. But hey, maybe you'll change your mind and actually come up with an answer! So here's the question again: what you would rather have seen happening - GM and Chrysler collapsing, or the government stepping in?

1 Reply

@old europe,

oe, You're wasting your time trying to have an intelligent discussion with water boy. He's probably one of the dumbest posters on a2k.

0 Replies

In the world of political phenomenon, on either the Left or the Right, it is rare to find somebody being brutally honest about the dynamics involved. But now and then somebody does risk that perhaps in the interest of personal integrity or intellectual honesty?

Little by little we are beginning to see rightwing oriented pundits enumerate some glaringly obvious sins of the GOP as well as some of the more subtle ones that sort of get swept under the rug.

And perhaps we are also beginning to see a refreshing trend of brutal honesty from the Left as well? The following, for instance, was excerpted from a David Sirota piece published none other than in the self-admitted and consistently leftwing Salon which is slowly but noticably earning my respect:

Quote:

. . . .But, then, behavior by President Obama suggests a more systemic assault on the campaign promise is underway.

It started in December when he was asked why he was making Hillary Clinton his chief diplomat after criticizing her qualifications and promising Democratic primary voters that his views on international relations were different than hers. He responded by telling the questioner "you're having fun" trying "to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign." The implicit assertion was that anyone expecting him to answer for campaign statements must just be "having fun" -- and certainly can't be serious.

A few months later, in reversing a five-year-old commitment to support ending the Cuban embargo, Obama offered no rationale for the U-turn other than saying he was "running for Senate" at a time that "seems just eons ago" -- again, as if everyone should know that previous campaign promises mean nothing.

At least that was a response. After the New York Times recently reported that "the administration has no present plans to reopen negotiations on NAFTA" as "Obama vowed to do during his campaign," there was no explanation offered whatsoever. We were left to recall Obama previously telling Fortune magazine that his NAFTA promises were too "overheated and amplified" to be taken literally.

It's true that politicians have always broken promises, but rarely so proudly and with such impunity.

We once respected democracy by at least demanding explanations -- however weak -- for unfulfilled promises. Then we became a country whose scorched-earth campaigns against flip-flopping desensitized us to reversals. Now, we don't flinch when our president appears tickled that a few poor souls still expect politicians to fulfill promises and justify broken ones.

The worst part of this devolution is the centrality of Obama, the prophet of “hope” and “change” who once said that "cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom." If that's true, then he has become America's wisest man -- the guy who seems to know my kids will laugh when I tell them politicians and voters once believed in democracy and took campaign promises seriously. . . .

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/06/sirota/

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Interesting, I've been reading the same complaints re Obama (as well as others) posted right here on a2k by known leftists, including myself.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I always thought broken campaign promises were normal. I guess we need to guage how important those promises were to determine if it makes any sense today vs when they were campaigning. On a scale of ten....

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I also heard that he was considering reversing his position on making health care voluntary. This was one of the few differences between him and Clinton, and one which I sided with Clinton on, so while this is good news to me....it does make me question Obama's character once again.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know