Obama vs. McCain

Seriously, I look it at which one is less likely to change my life for the worse. I don't see how Obama is going to drastically change my way of life. It basically comes down to me agreeing that the troops should be out of Iraq. I know he wants to do things that he has no right to do but I think ultimately those things aren't so bad. Ideally, I wish Ron Paul could be President. I'm talking out of my ass so feel free to dismantle what I just said.

He won't be pulling troops out of Iraq faster than the Bush Administration's plan. No one will. Which is why he and all the other Democrats admitted they'll probably be there until 2013.

I don't see how Obama is going to drastically change my way of life.

His wife seems to think otherwise. (And his supporters are hoping he does.)

“Barack knows that we are gonna have to make sacrifices, we are gonna have to change our conversation, we are gonna have to change our traditions, our history—we’re gonna have to move into a different place as a nation to provide the kind of future that we all want desperately for our children. And he is the man to do it.” —Michelle Obama

"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed – you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged." - Michelle Obama

"That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation." - Michelle Obama

He seems to almost be on board:
"Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.” —Barack Obama
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times...” —Barack Obama

Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.”

But what if a person loves his country for what it is, why would he want to change it and take responsibility?

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times...”

Fascist!

[quote="benji"][quote][quote]Bush increased the tax burden on the rich by cutting their taxes.[/quote]
Which turned out to be true![/quote]

I already pointed out how that was not true. You could make the same argument that the San Antonio Spurs increased the tax burden on the rich by winning the NBA title. Their tax burden increased for other, unrelated, regions, DESPITE Bush's tax cuts which had the relative effect of DECREASING their tax burden, an effect which was offset by OTHER factors. It's really weird how you are clinging to this fallacy.

Seriously, look at it like this:

I have 5 apples. You take one away. Meanwhile, I go pick 3 more apples. So I wind up with 7 when all is said and done.

By your logic, you would claim that you caused me to get more apples by taking one away!

Except, the only difference is, you would probably refer to the apples as fascists.

You could make the same argument that the San Antonio Spurs increased the tax burden on the rich by winning the NBA title.

Do San Antonio Spurs titles spur economic growth?

Their tax burden increased for other, unrelated, regions,

Like economic growth boosted by tax cuts?

I have 5 apples. You take one away. Meanwhile, I go pick 3 more apples. So I wind up with 7 when all is said and done.

By your logic, you would claim that you caused me to get more apples by taking one away!

Except that analogy has nothing to do with tax cuts. (I mean you have the tax cut "taking away an apple.")

It's more like, you have five apples, I'm currently taking three away. I give you back two I was taking, and you eat one of those returned apples so you get energy to go pick three more apples.

Anyway, the point is merely one in the refuting of the "Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy only" myth. It dropped more people from the rolls than ever, cut taxes across the board, and the result five years later is the rich paying a higher share of the taxes, which I would think is something all progressives want. (But I guess enough still isn't being stolen from them to statisfy some people.)

Except, the only difference is, you would probably refer to the apples as fascists.

Why would apples hold a political philosophy? Now who's sounding like a kook.

Feel free to answer any of the lingering questions I asked. Like what exactly "right-wing" is supposed to mean, etc.

Last edited by benji on Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Too much "fascists" talk:

Well, personally, I know Star Wars conventions always give me some pause.

When they came for Shatner, I said nothing, for I am not Shatner...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p55YD8QhQ3o[/youtube]

Feel free to answer any of the lingering questions I asked. Like what exactly "right-wing" is supposed to mean, etc.

Well, I use the terms right-wing and liberal in the common usages of the terms as applied to American politics - I'm sure you're ready to cite some definition and claim I'm some kind of idiot, but I use the terms loosely, with right-wing generally covering the viewpoints of the Republican and to a large extent Libertarians - bottom line, in general favoring lack of government intervention, and by lack of intervention tending to favor "the big guy", wealthy, corporations, etc. Against any government programs designed to assist the poor or disadvantaged. As well as generally, but certainly not universally, religious and pro-Christianity to an extent that I feel amounts to bigotry and discrimination against those other religions.

Meanwhile I take liberal to mean those who believe the government should work to improve our society in a general sense, rather than merely to maintain the society as it is, believe in protecting the little guy and the disadvantaged, etc etc etc.

I'm not even trying to be precise in my usage...I'm just using the regular imprecise words that normal people use in the real world.

Meanwhile, you seem more caught up in your private world of semantics where by some interpretation you decide to label most all mainstream politicians fascists. In the real world, accurate description or not, those are inflammatory and incendiary remarks and are the mark of an anti-government kook, like it or not.

I'm sure you're ready to cite some definition and claim I'm some kind of idiot

I don't do that kind of thing. I think people can be misinformed or wrong, and don't think that they're stupid or malicious. Like say, this:

In the real world, accurate description or not, those are inflammatory and incendiary remarks and are the mark of an anti-government kook, like it or not.

So then you ascribe to the discredited, nonsensical political spectrum taught most commonly by the state.

In which we have two poles, one of which is "social control, economic freedom" commonly ascribed to Republicans, or "conservative" and the other being the opposite, ascribed to Democrats and "liberals."

This runs into an endless series of problems.

First, where is an authoritarian who believes in social and economic control? In the middle. Where is the person who believes in social and economic freedom? In the middle.

Second, conservative isn't the opposite of liberal. It is the opposite of progressive. Liberal is the opposite of statist.

Third, both positions on the poles are untenable. You cannot have social freedom without economic freedom and vice versa. So it is meaningless to ascribe any value to either of the absolute pole values.

Fourth, it refuses to be properly setup and then borrows the language of completely different spectrums. Fascism was the "right-wing" of the Socialist spectrum, wanting socialism nationally instead of internationally, desiring to control business but not nationalize them, etc. Somehow the Nazi's and Mussolini became free-marketers when it was decided the "right-wing" of the political spectrum is Fascism, and the "left-wing" is Communism. While it was also decided "libertarians" (formally known as liberals, and at some point in the 1960s adopting the descriptor when it was decided Democrats were "liberal" and Republicans were "conservative." If anyone can actually find out the time these changes took place at the time, I'd love to know, mostly today they are retroactively applied in a fashion that is meaningless. They begin to be perverted in the wake of the First World War, but I cannot find mass acceptance of them as personal labels until the 1960s.) and "supply siders" were "right-wing" even though both of those are anti-collectivism.

Politically then, we are better off aligning ourselves, not along this single spectrum that makes zero sense and is historically confusing (Jefferson would be a "moderate", Stalin would be a "moderate", Hitler would be a "moderate", Henry would be a "moderate", Ron Paul is a "moderate" both anarchism and totalitarianism are "moderate" stances) and instead definining political traits over a series of spectrums and restructuring the primary one.

I generally identify using three of them, with a fourth fun one. With the first being primary.
First, would be liberalism vs. statism. Free markets, free "pursuit of happiness", less government and therefore less dangerous corruption versus controlled markets, state-ordered society and power/corruption. Purpose of government. On the liberalism end you do not break down into anarchism because there is an implied form of some kind of government. On the statist side it breaks down onto what way do you want to do it, Communism, Fascism, etc. In the U.S. most politicans do not want to nationalize industries (outside of Maxine Waters and others) but do want the government to control the economy, they also want to use the state to order society either through anti-smoking, fast food, skiing too fast, etc. or by what you perceive as "bigotry and discrimination." And some like Mike Huckabee want to do both.

Second, would be conservatism vs. progressivism. This is focused on the institutions. Conservatives would want to preserve or restore institutions, while progressives want to destroy or replace them.

Second and a halfish, would be evolution vs. revolution. An evolutionary tax reducer would want to cut from 35% to 30% this time. And then down the road cut to 25% and so on. A revolutionary would want to eliminate the entire system and replace it. An evolutionary anti-abortion person like McCain and Palin want to eliminate Roe v. Wade and leave it to the states. A revolutionary would want to eliminate Roe and ban abortion federally. It is similar to the second one, but I differentiate them slightly between policies and institutions. A revolutionary would generally be likely be wanting to change an institution immediately, but not destroy it all together. Such as in the tax example, the person who wants the so-called Fair Tax would want to destroy the system of tax policy, but not the institution of taxes themselves.

Lastly, would be how they want the government to be setup and decisions made. Monarch/tyrant through oligarchy through republic through to mob rule/democracy.

"Right-wing"/"left-wing" in the nomenclature many may be used to doesn't make any sense and isn't of much use. If we define "right-wing" as individual control and "left-wing" as state control, then it makes sense. No longer are Jefferson and Stalin buddies, Jefferson and Henry setup towards the right, Stalin and Hitler properly sit far-left. And Ron Paul isn't in the middle, he's on the ends of all three spectrums.

I think benji is a pretty cool guy. eh's a master debater and doesn't afraid of anything.

I'm interested, are you going to vote, benji?

Hell no. There's only one candidate I like, and he's won four straight elections against the same person. (A local election. The guy is totally insane, but super smart and super efficient for the job. You figure out which is my biggest motivation for supporting him.)

I mean, let's be realistic. Paul had no chance because he had been painted as a "kook" for supporting the rule of law, and seemed to actually prefer cultivating a "kook" image and probably actually is a kook. And if Thompson (someone I could vote for, even if not necessarily support) wasn't it and Guiliani (who at least knows how to administrate) wasn't, there was no reason to support anyone. And when Johm McCain gets the nomination. I mean, yeah, at least it wasn't Mike Huckabee, but it's pretty much as bad.

So I bailed out long ago. Even before Obama won the Dem nom. And when he won that, it was clear he was going to win the whole thing, it was really just a question of how much and how big would the Dems be in the Senate. Now we've known Obama is taking 350+, getting 58+ Senators and 250+ in the House.

In 2006, I only bothered voting for Governor (Granholm is such an epic failure, and DeVos had an epic economic plan. Granholm's was eight pages of "we need to invest in Michigan" while DeVos put out this beast of a 60 page thing that even if I thought much of it was silly standard politics, it was at least a plan and real change...and our state was and continues to be so totally imploding) and then third party for ballot status. My House (R), Senate (D), State Senate (D), State House (D) seats were all predetermined, as they are (barring State Senate which isn't up, and wouldn't be open either as the person is "Michigan's Hottest State Senator") this time. In 2004, I voted President, and ballot statused. I generally only vote if the Proposals/Referenda/etc. are worth it. (Which they were in 2006 and 2004...2006 had a ton, and 2004 had an absurd gay marriage ban.) And this time is totally stupid. A medical marijuana one that is just silly and will lose despite what the fanatics on campus think. And then a stem cell one, I'd vote against no matter what because it's a Constitutional Amendment and our state Constitution is already enough of a mockery with the junk in there.

Anyway, bit of a tangent there...but like I said earlier in the thread, your vote for Obama, or vote for McCain isn't really going to matter. And in most cases the third party won't, but you could luck into being the one vote they need for ballot status. There's never going to be a one vote difference between the dominant parties.

There is no reason to vote if you don't like the candidates, or don't understand the issues. Too many people are fooled into thinking they have to vote because it is "right" or your "duty" when it is not. If the Democrats put up Stalin and the Republicans put up Hitler, you don't have to pick one.

I want a McCain victory for the unhinged lulz. I want an Obama victory in hopes it will fatally divide the Republican party. We're fucked anyway over the next decade because of the governments illegal (for everyone but the government) accounting methods.

I'm an optimistic cynic. Either we wise up like Europe, Canada and others are starting to, and realize statism doesn't work, or we fuck ourselves in the ass. Either way we stop pretending we can cannabilize ourselves.

EDIT: I think I'll add some five minutes of rambling, maybe mchakko and others might be able to better understand me.

I like Bush. I like him personally. Really, I can't ever hate the guy. I like him, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. I like their personalities, and I like their emotional honesty. I hear them and I don't wonder where they stand. They tell me. And I refuse to listen to anyone who denies that they are epic. Name another major politican that would say "goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" and then fist pump. No one. Bush is epic. And all of us will miss the moral ease that is just simply opposing him.

I don't like Bush politically. Of course not, I dislike him. I like him on three things: Original Iraq decision...well...actually I don't like his tax cuts and taking on Social Security for the policy themselves as much as his daringness. He bet on tax cuts increasing tax revenues (if only he had cut spending instead of spending like an unburdened Democrat) and touched the third rail. And lived.

I don't think he's a demon despite being opposed to a lot of what he does. And I don't hate Barack Obama, or anyone else, for what they do. I think they're wrong. And I only bring up Obama being stupid because of the memes of Bush and Palin. Real double-standards, not the fake ones that get peddled around here are always fun. I don't think he really is stupid. Misguided yeah, but look at how he got here.

I also don't think Obama is what his wife and supporters think. I've always known he's just a standard politican, which is why the flip-flops and his support for the special interests he condemns isn't shocking or deal-breaking. And I'd rather 100% of the Senate voted present 100% of the time.

I'd rather people stop deluding themselves into thinking any of these politicans are actually for anything but outright power, and actually know how or want to save this country from the destructive path we're on. Bob Barr smelled where power was, and changed accordingly. McKinney is flat out insane (and the Greens will regret nominating her since they thought they were on the verge of becoming a longterm party), and Baldwin is truly fringe.

We can only dream Obama is another Clinton. I mean, people don't realize what Clinton was. He dropped his entire agenda to balance the budget, then he went along with Republicans to cut taxes and reform welfare. Yeah, he was the worst foreign policy President for anyone that wasn't Carter or LBJ. But domestically. Did you see that dotcom bubble? And how he shuffled off the burst onto Bush?

Sadly, I feel like he won't be. His supporters, and the Democratic Congress are unhinged after 13 years with checks and balances. (Even if Bush gave them Medicare Part D, the Patriot Act, NCLB, etc.) They want to pay off their special interests immediately and cannabilize. And Pelosi and Reid have proven they're the most incompetant Congressional leadership in post-War history at least.

I've been more critical of Obama because it's clear he was our President for a while now. (And no, I won't be like the Left and refuse that he's my President.) And ignoring McCain because he's irrelevant and just a stand-in for anti-Obama people. It'll take some getting used to where most of the people out there support the President, no matter what he does. But this is real change, an opportunity to fully oppose someone without the alternative being worse.

EDIT2: I was reading elsewhere and decided that yes, I would support a one-time tax to reduce the debt if it was backed by a corresponding reduction in federal government. No one will do this obviously. They'll all just claim they can fix everything by going after earmarks (which will be spent anyway, earmarks are just orders to direct these funds to specific things) or by raising taxes slightly on the "rich" both of which should be considered lies.

Last edited by benji on Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

I wish that had never happened. (Especially since Obama doesn't seem to know that most of his "tax cut" is rebates to people who don't already pay taxes. And how he seems to support "supply side economics" but only for people who make a certain amount. I do like the guy who asked it though. He seems to be of the untrusting type.)

There is no reason to vote if you don't like the candidates, or don't understand the issues. Too many people are fooled into thinking they have to vote because it is "right" or your "duty" when it is not. If the Democrats put up Stalin and the Republicans put up Hitler, you don't have to pick one.

I lol'd on that one.
Heard too many lectures and sermons on how I shouldn't waste my "right", imagine those people in other countries who can't vote, yada-yada-yada..
Stalin and Hitler should shut them up when I use them as examples. I may have to change Stalin, I kind of like him.

http://games.yahoo.com/free-games/elect ... rimination

actually i am another guy who is not going to vote, not because i am not allowed to by the government, but because my church affiliation does not allow voting. the reason for this is that God will put in the right candidate no matter who we as individuals choose.
I am going to add one thing. the constitution and the law only allow for a business tax. all other taxes are illegal. but since the government declares that we must pay taxes, even though its illegal, I choose to pay said taxes since Christ told me i must.

actually i am another guy who is not going to vote, not because i am not allowed to by the government, but because my church affiliation does not allow voting. the reason for this is that God will put in the right candidate no matter who we as individuals choose.

That's a pathetic excuse. Candidates are selected by the people who vote. It's 1+1 logic here.

I am going to add one thing. the constitution and the law only allow for a business tax. all other taxes are illegal. but since the government declares that we must pay taxes, even though its illegal, I choose to pay said taxes since Christ told me i must.

... ooookay. Or you might get into shit by the government and get jail time if you don't pay your taxes?

Religious organizations are tax exempt, but not religious individuals. I thinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

Joe the Plumber = instant celebrity
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... l=10234011

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU8BtvN7aZw[/youtube]

... ooookay. Or you might get into shit by the government and get jail time if you don't pay your taxes?

actually its not the government who gets you in trouble but the kgb er the irs

Oh shite! The KGB.

Vice Presidential Candidate Warns: International Crisis If Obama Elected

"Mark my words," ... vice presidential nominee warned at the second of [their] two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. ... Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," [the candidate] said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. ... Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that [the Obama administration is] right."
...
"Gird your loins," [the Candidate] told the crowd. "... this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy."
...
"... But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years."
...
"There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," [the vice presidential candidate] continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound."

More harsh attacks on Barack Obama from a long time critic. While Secretary of State Albright agrees.

I like how Albright segways to her book.

i am sorry to revive this old thread but take a look at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Even a man like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's always full of ideas, is mocking Obama's ideas or lack of it.
Linky

Arnie's advice to Obama: beef up your body and your ideas

Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger has some advice for Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama: beef up your body and your ideas.

Schwarzenegger, who organizes a bodybuilding competition in Columbus every year, said he wanted to invite Obama because "he needs to do something about those skinny legs. I'm going to make him do some squats."

"And then we're going to make him do some biceps curls to beef up those scrawny little arms," Schwarzenegger said, before his punchline: "But if he could only do something about putting some meat on his ideas."

Given the source, it would be more appropriate if he suggested his ideas needed an injection of steroids.