PDA

View Full Version : Messianic musings...



Okla-homey
2/23/2008, 01:06 PM
I've lately been enthralled by the fervor of BHO supporters. It seems, as many pundits and political commentators have observed; folks are displaying swooning and almost "cult-ish" commitment to the man and his message of "change," "hope," and the notion that government exists to provide the things people need and/or desperately want.

As a result, it occurs to me this election could become a referendum of sorts in terms of redefining government's proper role in our lives. Put another way, whether "ask not what your country can do for you, but rather, ask what you can do for your country" as articulated by JFK in 1960 remains the ideal, or if it will be replaced by the notion government is obligated, like a benevolent father, to give people things need but don't have. It must be said, this is indeed the normative paradigm in the world, with the heretofore notable exception of the United States.

Moreover, I'm struck by the notion so many of BHO's supporters are youthful and/or disadvantaged, thus this might explain why his message resonates so strongly with them.

To wit, because so many grew up fatherless and/or in want, with no practical alternative to getting the things they want or need other than hard work...and hard work is, well, hard, BHO represents that benevolent messianic figure who can immediately bridge the chasm between the "have nots" and the things they want.

Unconcerned with the practicalities, it seems to me at least, many believe BHO, like Santa, Christ, or Daddy Warbucks, will somehow make manifest the visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads.

What say the assembled lumaniti in this grand salon we call the SO?

:pop:

Frozen Sooner
2/23/2008, 01:19 PM
I think you've missed the fact that Obama's main support in the Democratic party came from the affluent. Clinton was the one who was drawing the most support for the lower income strata.

soonerscuba
2/23/2008, 01:28 PM
At this point Obama leads in almost every demo, including the intelligentsia (read: moneyed).

I think he will have a hard time if he's elected in that there is some major league hype around him, and there has for a while. I think that he is now a cult figure like JFK or Reagan. Despite what many think, this is a very good thing. JFK was in office for 3 years and didn't do much, Reagan sold weapons to sworn enemies of the United States, and yet are remembered fondly. Obama has a chance to be a non-entity and remembered as a giant. None one else in this cycle can claim that.

Chuck Bao
2/23/2008, 01:43 PM
Yeah? Like a president that is articulate and brings hope is far too much to ask? The fact that I'm selfish and lazy is besides the point.

Turd_Ferguson
2/23/2008, 01:50 PM
I think you've missed the fact that Obama's main support in the Democratic party came from the affluent. Clinton was the one who was drawing the most support for the lower income strata.Please point me to this info with wich you came.

Harry Beanbag
2/23/2008, 02:17 PM
Yeah? Like a president that is articulate and brings hope is far too much to ask? The fact that I'm selfish and lazy is besides the point.


Not that I'm comparing him to Hitler, but ol' Adolf did those things as well. The truth will be shown in his actions, not his pretty words.

Frozen Sooner
2/23/2008, 02:20 PM
Will do. Might take me a bit-most of the articles posted after Obama's wins in the Potomac primaries stated that Obama had whittled into or peeled away Clinton's support in low-income demographics.

yermom
2/23/2008, 02:25 PM
i do like the idea of lessening the Good 'ol Boy system. i'm not sure why "change" has to be some socialist idea

i'd rather see social programs than an Executive branch in bed with companies like Halliburton

Sooner_Bob
2/23/2008, 02:38 PM
Wouldn't you think that the Executive Branch is always going to be in bed with some large group or corporation? IMO the lobbyist groups in this country have far too much power to ever let that get away from them.

But back to Homey's question. I think that for whatever reason people out there have it in their minds that the US was perfect before Dubya got into office. Hate to break to them, but it was far from perfect. I fail to see how these same people can think that McCain, Obama, Mrs. Clinton or Ron Paul for that matter is going to suddenly pull the US back into what they see as the right position within the world political game.

What exactly has any of them actually done to make folks think that?

I think Obama appeals to most folks because he's not a 65 year old white guy. They see him as something new and different. Thus they believe that if he's elected POTUS things will suddenly get "better". Whatever that means.

Harry Beanbag
2/23/2008, 03:08 PM
i do like the idea of lessening the Good 'ol Boy system. i'm not sure why "change" has to be some socialist idea

I don't know why it has to be some socialist idea either, but that's how it's currently being sold to us. The kind of "change" I'd like to see is starting over with 535 new Congressmen and Senators.



i'd rather see social programs than an Executive branch in bed with companies like Halliburton

I'd like to have neither of those two options.

King Crimson
2/23/2008, 03:24 PM
given the uncritical deification of Reagan by many (including the thread's author, Ronaldus Maximus--Roman Emperor), i note some partisan irony in the original post.

though, there's no doubt some of the "wild-eyed" Obama people are kinda creepy. the suggestion that there is some psycho-familial reason for Obama's appeal ("growing up fatherless"--thereby the not so veiled implication that people who aren't conservative republicans are defective somehow) is a bit of a stretch......but, when playing the partisan "turn-around" game many Pubs fascination with paternal or "almighty" authority, authoritarian figures, military fiction that glamorizes warfare and American exceptionalism, solving most problems with force or the threat of force etc. might also beg psychological explanation. because that's hardly the image of a complete father figure, present or absent.

can't have it both ways.

Harry Beanbag
2/23/2008, 03:31 PM
given the uncritical deification of Reagan by many (including the thread's author, Ronaldus Maximus--Roman Emperor), i note some partisan irony in the original post.

though, there's no doubt some of the "wild-eyed" Obama people are kinda creepy. the suggestion that there is some psycho-familial reason for Obama's appeal ("growing up fatherless"--thereby the not so veiled implication that people who aren't conservative republicans are defective somehow) is a bit of a stretch......but, when playing the partisan "turn-around" game many Pubs fascination with paternal or "almighty" authority, authoritarian figures, military fiction that glamorizes warfare and American exceptionalism, solving most problems with force or the threat of force etc. might also beg psychological explanation. because that's hardly the image of a complete father figure, present or absent.

can't have it both ways.


Other than the obvious that one of them is dead, there are some rather huge distinctions between Reagan's and Obama's political status, career, and accomplishments. No?

King Crimson
2/23/2008, 03:35 PM
that's not really my point HB. psychological or sociological explanation for political choices is more the issue i'm talking about (as pro-offered in the original thread)....not a comparison of political careers.

SanJoaquinSooner
2/23/2008, 04:00 PM
Well, the Democrats haven't been successful when they nominate someone from the left wing of the party- at least since maybe Roosevelt (not sure who was more left wing - Roosevelt or Al Smith).

But look at the successful donks - Turman, JFK, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. They all were centrists within the donk party.

Harry Beanbag
2/23/2008, 04:26 PM
that's not really my point HB. psychological or sociological explanation for political choices is more the issue i'm talking about (as pro-offered in the original thread)....not a comparison of political careers.


Oh no doubt. The human mind is a strange and powerful thing. Trying to analyze people's thought processes can only leave you scratching your head.

I was just saying that at least Reagan actually has something that can be deified if someone was inclined to do so.

shaun4411
2/23/2008, 04:38 PM
ive heard some christians say that obama is the devil. that this is exactly how satan would become empowered. say what we want to hear and talk his way into power. how he is the best liar, and speaker and whatnot.

so if a billion people suddenly vanish with no warning shortly after obama gets hypathetically sworn in, watch out.

12
2/23/2008, 05:41 PM
I don't really have much to say other than that I applaud the eloquence of our own charasmatic, erudite and benevolent Homey.

Abe should have penned such a post.

SicEmBaylor
2/23/2008, 05:44 PM
Please point me to this info with wich you came.

It's true. Obama leads most demographics now, but his original base of support came from affluent liberals and academia.

VeeJay
2/23/2008, 05:49 PM
ive heard some christians say that obama is the devil. that this is exactly how satan would become empowered. say what we want to hear and talk his way into power. how he is the best liar, and speaker and whatnot.

so if a billion people suddenly vanish with no warning shortly after obama gets hypathetically sworn in, watch out.

I have yet to receive the requisite e-mail about Obama being the anti-Christ, but I am sure it's coming from my network of esteemed e-mail associates.

Given this, should I be concerned that when my time comes, I should prepare the answer about who I voted for, for president in 2008?

shaun4411
2/23/2008, 06:07 PM
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061130125358AA1hRgT

i dont condone anything people here are saying. just poking fun at the idiocy of some of these loons.

12
2/23/2008, 06:11 PM
Heh! Color me a fool soon to perish. That is a wonderful, silly read.

olevetonahill
2/23/2008, 06:45 PM
i do like the idea of lessening the Good 'ol Boy system. i'm not sure why "change" has to be some socialist idea

i'd rather see social programs than an Executive branch in bed with companies like Halliburton
Yup Heaven Forbid the Oval Bunch be In bed with an American Company
Much better to have the Chinese In bed with ya :D

Frozen Sooner
2/23/2008, 06:50 PM
Didn't Halliburton just change their country of domicile to outside the US?

olevetonahill
2/23/2008, 06:50 PM
Well, the Democrats haven't been successful when they nominate someone from the left wing of the party- at least since maybe Roosevelt (not sure who was more left wing - Roosevelt or Al Smith).

But look at the successful donks - Turman, JFK, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. They all were centrists within the donk party.
Whos 'Turman" ?
are you saying , Johnson an carter were Successful ? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

olevetonahill
2/23/2008, 06:54 PM
Didn't Halliburton just change their country of domicile to outside the US?
hell if I know
But Ole Earl Founded that company way back when with a Borrowed wagon, Pump and some cement he bot On Credit
Its a very interesting story
My facts may Not be Ackurat But they dayum close !;)

soonerloyal
2/23/2008, 07:05 PM
Shawn, cover up that pathetic little plug of noobness. You're embarrassing yourself and making the ladies laugh ourselves silly. And stop calling people loons. You haven't earned crap around here except a red belly, and won't, the way you're going.

Homey, I do not swoon, I am not cultish (except for my support of the Marine Corps, and that's plain common sense). I do not believe Barack Obama to be Messianic nor a benevolent father figure. At age 49, I am not youthful, nor am I disadvantaged; although I am ardently a believer in health care for all (a healthy society is a more productive and long-lasting society). I in no way view hard work as impractical or distasteful, nor do I prefer a hand out to a hand up to those who need it. I am highly concerned with practicalities. I am well-read, well-traveled, and I painstakingly educate myself about events, people, politics and history. I take very seriously my rights and the responsibilities that go with having them. I know how to use search engines, books, snopes.com*, common sense and the brain that God gave me.

In lieu of John Edwards, I support Barack Obama as the best of all the choices we have at this point. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I refuse to fit into the mold to which you seem so desperate to put me. Kindly take comfort from someone else's failings, Sir - not mine.

And God bless you.




*(a link I highly recommend for several SO posters - Obama a Muslim and sworn in on the Quran, my fat six. Mass emailings of urban legends do not the truth make.)

shaun4411
2/23/2008, 07:31 PM
Shawn, cover up that pathetic little plug of noobness. You're embarrassing yourself and making the ladies laugh ourselves silly. And stop calling people loons. You haven't earned crap around here except a red belly, and won't, the way you're going.

Homey, I do not swoon, I am not cultish (except for my support of the Marine Corps, and that's plain common sense). I do not believe Barack Obama to be Messianic nor a benevolent father figure. At age 49, I am not youthful, nor am I disadvantaged; although I am ardently a believer in health care for all (a healthy society is a more productive and long-lasting society). I in no way view hard work as impractical or distasteful, nor do I prefer a hand out to a hand up to those who need it. I am highly concerned with practicalities. I am well-read, well-traveled, and I painstakingly educate myself about events, people, politics and history. I take very seriously my rights and the responsibilities that go with having them. I know how to use search engines, books, snopes.com*, common sense and the brain that God gave me.

In lieu of John Edwards, I support Barack Obama as the best of all the choices we have at this point. And I'm sorry to dissappoint you, but I refuse to fit into the mold to which you seem so desperate to put me. Kindly take comfort from someone else's failings, Sir - not mine.

And God bless you.




*(a link I highly recommend for several SO posters - Obama a Muslim and sworn in on the Quran, my fat six. Mass emailings of urban legends do not the truth make.)

i have no idea who you are, or why you chose to misspell my name. but thanks for the kind words.

soonerloyal
2/23/2008, 07:34 PM
Noob...

olevetonahill
2/23/2008, 07:34 PM
i have no idea who you are, or why you chose to misspell my name. but thanks for the kind words.
Dont make me Take back that green now :cool:

olevetonahill
2/23/2008, 07:36 PM
Noob...
Get it right Miss 775 posts
Its nOOb!:D

soonerloyal
2/23/2008, 07:42 PM
Get it right Miss 775 posts
Its nOOb!:D

nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb

Now I'm dizzy, teacher...
:D

olevetonahill
2/23/2008, 07:44 PM
Thats Better
You Dizzy teacher you :D

shaun4411
2/23/2008, 07:49 PM
Noob...

so am i supposed to feel insulted?

olevetonahill
2/23/2008, 07:56 PM
so am i supposed to feel insulted?
No
You Possed to Bow and Scrape to yo Betters :D
nOOb

shaun4411
2/23/2008, 08:00 PM
No
You Possed to Bow and Scrape to yo Betters :D
nOOb


this would be assuming that having enough free time to have a few thousand posts makes you better? :)

olevetonahill
2/23/2008, 08:04 PM
this would be assuming that having enough free time to have a few thousand posts makes you better? :)
Pretty dayum much
Now Bow nOOb :P

Harry Beanbag
2/23/2008, 08:21 PM
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb
nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb nOOb

Now I'm dizzy, teacher...
:D


nOOb.

shaun4411
2/23/2008, 08:22 PM
Pretty dayum much
Now Bow nOOb :P


man, i really wish i cared.

soonerloyal
2/23/2008, 08:48 PM
nOOb.


Heh.

olevetonahill
2/23/2008, 09:06 PM
man, i really wish i cared.
shoulda cared. shoulda just had fun nOOb
cause the olevet , and then he toook away :P
now let me know when ya wanta be fun and we can do some more adjustin on that attitude of urs ;)

BlondeSoonerGirl
2/23/2008, 09:10 PM
You turds.

It's 'n00b'.

:mack:

olevetonahill
2/23/2008, 09:12 PM
You turds.

It's 'n00b'.

:mack:
Well just flush me ! :P

BlondeSoonerGirl
2/23/2008, 09:13 PM
Heh.

Scott D
2/23/2008, 09:15 PM
musing is dangerous to someone who wants to be lawyering. Just look at the posting resume of Soonerus.

It would be a better argument to say that a great deal of Obama's popularity is directly related to the fact that there is a growing portion of the American population that is aware enough to realize that "Politics as normal" is ineffective, inefficient, and incredibly outdated as a method of governing.

I will qualify that by saying that by chance that he is elected for PotUS, I see very little changing no matter what is being said. Despite promises being made by any campaign, the Beast feeds itself on the blood, sweat, and tears of the American people, and a change in administration won't be enough to cause it to die a painful death.

Okla-homey
2/24/2008, 08:10 AM
:(


musing is dangerous to someone who wants to be lawyering. Just look at the posting resume of Soonerus.

It would be a better argument to say that a great deal of Obama's popularity is directly related to the fact that there is a growing portion of the American population that is aware enough to realize that "Politics as normal" is ineffective, inefficient, and incredibly outdated as a method of governing. Because "politics as normal" remains unable to help the poor and disaffected rise to prosperity? Keep in mind, the original Messiah expressed the fundamental truth we will "always have the poor" among us. While that should not be interpreted as license to ignore their plight, I don't think the fact we have poor folks means a system of government is a failure.

I will qualify that by saying that by chance that he is elected for PotUS, I see very little changing no matter what is being said. Despite promises being made by any campaign, the Beast feeds itself on the blood, sweat, and tears of the American people, and a change in administration won't be enough to cause it to die a painful death. I respecfully submit that the dead white guys who drafted the Constitution had that in mind when they limited the power of the chief executive.

Scott D
2/24/2008, 11:53 AM
If your perception is that I find the government in it's current incarnation to be a failure because of the "plight of the poor" you are so far off base, you might as well be posting from the star that used to be a planet that used to be a star known as Pluto.

I don't disagree that the 'Founding Fathers' had those limitations in mind when they limited the power of the chief executive. I do not believe that the 'dead white guys' had a corporate government in mind when they wrote the Constitution. I do not believe that the 'dead white guys', believed that this country would be best served going forward led by leaders whom are purchased by corporations/special interests before they announce they seek the office.

That however doesn't change the fact that every portion of the government for the post part runs autonomously regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office or not. Because of that, I'm sure that your view of the purpose of the PotUS and mine are vastly different. In your view, he is far more important to the overall picture than mine. In my view he is a face whose primary purpose is to build the right bridges and keep the nation focused in the right way. Partisan divisiveness has been the primary building block for the better part of the last century.

In that regard you could possibly see why I would consider the last four terms of Presidency to have been a failure no matter what 'history' will say about them.

Frozen Sooner
2/24/2008, 12:37 PM
Please point me to this info with wich you came.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080207/NATION/344735957/1002/NATION

"Barack Obama continued to do well among voters who are younger, better-educated and wealthier;"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1969199/posts

"...Hillary Clinton consistently outperformed him among white and Latino working-class voters. In Clinton's most significant Super Tuesday pick-ups, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts, her margin of victory as much as doubled among voters making less than $50,000, as well as among those without college degrees."

http://www.slate.com/id/2184346/

"Obama won among all income groups, including the lower-income voters he's had trouble attracting even in states he won."


edit: I did come across a multiple regression analysis that showed that once educational level was controlled for, income was not a significant factor in predicting who would vote for Obama vs. Clinton.

Okla-homey
2/24/2008, 01:03 PM
I don't disagree that the 'Founding Fathers' had those limitations in mind when they limited the power of the chief executive. I do not believe that the 'dead white guys' had a corporate government in mind when they wrote the Constitution. I do not believe that the 'dead white guys', believed that this country would be best served going forward led by leaders whom are purchased by corporations/special interests before they announce they seek the office.


I respectfully dissent. The Constitution does not grant citizens the right to vote for the President or VP. As you probably know, Article II states Electors for the presidential election are appointed by the "manner as the legislature thereof may direct."

Thus, unless a state has some statutory means of tying the popular vote to that of the electors that state appoints to the Electoral College, ordinary citizens lack any role whatsoever in the selection of the president.

The process was amended in 1913 to choose the VP the same way. (XVII Amendment)

I submit, that process, as established by the dead white guys, contributes to the status quo in which presidents are "bought and paid for" before they even take office. I'm afraid it's been that way since the founding of the Republic. See, I don't think the Founders trusted the folks to directly elect their president or vice president in order to help prevent an attractive and compelling "loose cannon" from getting to the Oval Office.

Oh, and BTW, as pointed out last night on SNL, HRC still has the "old white lady" demographic locked up...but she's lost everything else. Hollywood has deserted her and Bill for BHO. Heck, even the Teamsters have gotten on the BHO bandwagon.

JohnnyMack
2/24/2008, 02:21 PM
Your beloved W campaigned in 2000 on the same idea of "change."

Now that ol' mo has swung to the Donks you'll do what you can to discount BHO as a snake oil salesman.

It's OK, it's what America does with its political process.

Okla-homey
2/24/2008, 02:32 PM
Your beloved W campaigned in 2000 on the same idea of "change."

Now that ol' mo has swung to the Donks you'll do what you can to discount BHO as a snake oil salesman.

It's OK, it's what America does with its political process.

With all the respect in the world, and I freely admit W's been a dissapointment at times, the man had actually accomplished some stuff. Governing texass can't have been easy. BHO, in contrast, has never "run" anything.

My thing with BHO, apart from his uber-lib-edness, is the fact I can't decipher what he's "for" except the abstract notion of "change."

Change purely for change's sake is rarely a well-advised move. Frankly, I'd like to see the guy put some substance to the platitudes and let us know what he really wants to get done out of the blocks. I agree with HRC that sort of thing has not been forthcoming from the man.

Curly Bill
2/24/2008, 02:33 PM
See, I don't think the Founders trusted the folks to directly elect their president or vice president in order to help prevent an attractive and compelling "loose cannon" from getting to the Oval Office.


There is no question about this. The electors were to be a group of politically informed peeps that would be familiar with the candidates and the issues of the time, and not subject to flights of fancy when it came election time, but could be trusted to make a wise decision and not just a popular one.

One must also understand that when the Constitution was put into place enacting this system that the United States was very much rural in nature and many people who might qualify to vote would have little knowledge of the people running for POTUS, and thus not likely to make an informed decision. I'm not sure that is still not the case, but for different reasons then we are a rural society without ready access to information.

So yes, the founders did not trust the people to directly elect their POTUS.

Frozen Sooner
2/24/2008, 02:57 PM
With all the respect in the world, and I freely admit W's been a dissapointment at times, the man had actually accomplished some stuff. Governing texass can't have been easy. BHO, in contrast, has never "run" anything.

My thing with BHO, apart from his uber-lib-edness, is the fact I can't decipher what he's "for" except the abstract notion of "change."

Change purely for change's sake is rarely a well-advised move. Frankly, I'd like to see the guy put some substance to the platitudes and let us know what he really wants to get done out of the blocks. I agree with HRC that sort of thing has not been forthcoming from the man.

Obama's positions on the issues are easy to find. Simply repeating the mantra that he hasn't formulated a position is not the equivalent of proving that to be the case. www.barackobama.com and clicking "issues" would probably be a good jumping-off point. Or you could read the two books he's written-in particular, The Audacity of Hope gives a good insight into what his stands are.

olevetonahill
2/24/2008, 02:57 PM
Your beloved W campaigned in 2000 on the same idea of "change."

Now that ol' mo has swung to the Donks you'll do what you can to discount BHO as a snake oil salesman.

It's OK, it's what America does with its political process.
CHANGE ????????:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Aint gonna happen!

Frozen Sooner
2/24/2008, 02:59 PM
There is no question about this. The electors were to be a group of politically informed peeps that would be familiar with the candidates and the issues of the time, and not subject to flights of fancy when it came election time, but could be trusted to make a wise decision and not just a popular one.

One must also understand that when the Constitution was put into place enacting this system that the United States was very much rural in nature and many people who might qualify to vote would have little knowledge of the people running for POTUS, and thus not likely to make an informed decision. I'm not sure that is still not the case, but for different reasons then we are a rural society without ready access to information.

So yes, the founders did not trust the people to directly elect their POTUS.

Excellent post.

And it's not as if the founding fathers were unanimous in their belief that direct election was evil, that was simply the prevailing thought of the time. It's also rather unlikely that the founders anticipated a massive transformation of the United States from a land-capital based agrarian economy to a liquid-capital based manufacturing/service economy-which has a direct impact on the ability of those possessing capital to influence elections. (Edit: as it's much easier to give your candidate of choice a check for $1000 than it is to send him a hunk of sod.)

olevetonahill
2/24/2008, 03:00 PM
Your beloved W campaigned in 2000 on the same idea of "change."

Now that ol' mo has swung to the Donks you'll do what you can to discount BHO as a snake oil salesman.

It's OK, it's what America does with its political process.
Can I just say I dont Like any off them Snake Oil Peddlers ( Mackincluded ):cool:

Mixer!
2/24/2008, 03:57 PM
There is no question about this. The electors were to be a group of politically informed peeps that would be familiar with the candidates and the issues of the time, and not subject to flights of fancy when it came election time, but could be trusted to make a wise decision and not just a popular one.

One must also understand that when the Constitution was put into place enacting this system that the United States was very much rural in nature and many people who might qualify to vote would have little knowledge of the people running for POTUS, and thus not likely to make an informed decision. I'm not sure that is still not the case, but for different reasons then we are a rural society without ready access to information.

So yes, the founders did not trust the people to directly elect their POTUS.

Can the argument then be made that given the relatively low numbers of eligible voters that participate in POTUS elections that they in fact function just like electors, and therefore aren't given to being influenced by the "flavor of the month" candidates?

Curly Bill
2/24/2008, 04:50 PM
Can the argument then be made that given the relatively low numbers of eligible voters that participate in POTUS elections that they in fact function just like electors, and therefore aren't given to being influenced by the "flavor of the month" candidates?

If the current crop of those that do vote could be considered to be wise and informed then perhaps to some degree so. Alas, I don't think that's the case, as can be attested to by some of our recent candidates and even some who were elected. ;)

I think the opposite might be more likely to be true in that those who get caught up in what you call a "flavor of the month" candidate might be more likely to actively participate in the election process including voting.

King Crimson
2/24/2008, 05:03 PM
Excellent post.

And it's not as if the founding fathers were unanimous in their belief that direct election was evil, that was simply the prevailing thought of the time. It's also rather unlikely that the founders anticipated a massive transformation of the United States from a land-capital based agrarian economy to a liquid-capital based manufacturing/service economy-which has a direct impact on the ability of those possessing capital to influence elections. (Edit: as it's much easier to give your candidate of choice a check for $1000 than it is to send him a hunk of sod.)

by the same token, the nature of social class transformation is much more dynamic than in a land-based economy where value is a strict condition of scarcity (productive land). one could easily argue that the founding fathers also had the maintenance of their own social class as a key feature of designing electoral politics....if you wanted to. DeTocqueville and JS Mill, political theorists contemporary to early American democracy, are shot through with noting fear of "mob rule" and "the tyranny of the majority" as the dangers inherent to democracy. the founding fathers may have disagreed among themselves, but their's was an intra-class conflict generally as members of the land-holding class.

to bring the two points together....in a less fluid state of social transformation (as it is suggested exists today versus an agrarian land-holding society typified by a greater degree of scarcity) any true "new" or confrontational question of how to allocate (or RE-allocate) the resources of society in a legitimate way is more likely to be pursued through violence and means of arms than economic or "parliamentary" strategies (as might be the case today). So, to ensure parliamentary procedure as a safeguard to direct popular rule.....you create electoral colleges, etc.

Curly Bill
2/24/2008, 05:12 PM
There is no doubt that many, or at least some, of the founders had in mind to protect themselves and those like them from "mob rule." The electoral college was part of that, as was certain voting qualifications and the like.

Okla-homey
2/24/2008, 05:29 PM
Obama's positions on the issues are easy to find. Simply repeating the mantra that he hasn't formulated a position is not the equivalent of proving that to be the case. www.barackobama.com and clicking "issues" would probably be a good jumping-off point. Or you could read the two books he's written-in particular, The Audacity of Hope gives a good insight into what his stands are.

I have. IMHO, its all "Big Rock Candy Mountain" stuff. I mean some feasible goals for America.

Curly Bill
2/24/2008, 05:46 PM
I have. IMHO, its all "Big Rock Candy Mountain" stuff. I mean some feasible goals for America.

Big Rock Candy Mountain :D

O Brother SPEK on that one. :D

Chuck Bao
2/24/2008, 05:50 PM
I'm loving this discussion and hating on it too.

I hate any notion that democracy doesn't work whether in a pure form or not. I hate the elitist's arguments that they know better than everyone else. I hate the message this sends to despots, elitists around the world.

I don't know anything about US politics, but I do know about stock markets. This instant age is creating much more volatility and flavor of the month and herd instinct. And, it's frightening. I did an online poll of my clients and almost 50% said that they were both momentum and value investors. Only 28% said that the value of the underlying stock was their primary consideration.

There will be a backlash against the instant information, polling and media frenzy. I just hope that backlash doesn't destroy democracy.

Curly Bill
2/24/2008, 06:06 PM
I'm certainly not going to predict the end of democracy in this country, but it's a historical fact that the more diverse a nations people become the harder it is to maintain. Democracy works best when most of the people are of a common kind with common goals and interest. The more diverse a group of people become the more likely they are to want different things, to see things differently, to have a different opinion on what the country and it's government ought to be doing. Sometimes this causes problems.

Sorry for that downer, I still think we are far and away the greatest country on earth. I think we have a ways to go before we implode. In fact I think we'll all be long gone. ;)

Frozen Sooner
2/24/2008, 06:36 PM
I have. IMHO, its all "Big Rock Candy Mountain" stuff. I mean some feasible goals for America.

OK, so you do know what his positions are, you just don't agree with them or think they're realistic. That's a far cry from "Obama doesn't have any positions on the issues."

Frozen Sooner
2/24/2008, 07:14 PM
Oh, yeah, speaking of JFK, here's some excerpts from another speech he gave in 1960 (actually, the "Ask not" speech was his inaugural address in 1961):

"For I stand tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch three thousand miles behind me, the pioneers of old gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build a new world here in the West. They were not the captives of their own doubts, the prisoners of their own price tags. Their motto was not "every man for himself"--but "all for the common cause." They were determined to make that new world strong and free, to overcome its hazards and its hardships, to conquer the enemies that threatened from without and within."

“We stand at the edge of a New Frontier – the frontier of unfulfilled hopes and dreams. It will deal with unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus.”

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/JFK+Pre-Pres/Address+of+Senator+John+F.+Kennedy+Accepting+the+D emocratic+Party+Nomination+for+the+Presidency+of+t .htm

And, you know, just so we can put the quote "Ask not..." in the context of the speech it was given:

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.

Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.

Frankly, it's a downright mistake to think that JFK's comment meant anything but that people should sacrifice for the common good, not that the government shouldn't be in the business of helping those who need it.

Jerk
2/24/2008, 07:24 PM
I'm loving this discussion and hating on it too.

I hate any notion that democracy doesn't work whether in a pure form or not. I hate the elitist's arguments that they know better than everyone else. I hate the message this sends to despots, elitists around the world.

Two problems I have with a 'pure' democracy:

1. A majority can vote to strip away the rights of a minority
2. The populace figures out that they can vote themselves goodies.

This is why I prefer a Constitutional Republic with a guarantee of individual rights, such as our Bill of Rights ;)

Scott D
2/24/2008, 07:37 PM
Two problems I have with a 'pure' democracy:

1. A majority can vote to strip away the rights of a minority
2. The populace figures out that they can vote themselves goodies.

This is why I prefer a Constitutional Republic with a guarantee of individual rights, such as our Bill of Rights ;)

there is no such thing as a 'pure' democracy, just as there has been no such thing as a 'pure' communist regime. For any form of government to exist in tangible form, there has to be a stratus of classes.

Okla-homey
2/24/2008, 07:43 PM
Two problems I have with a 'pure' democracy:

1. A majority can vote to strip away the rights of a minority
2. The populace figures out that they can vote themselves goodies.

This is why I prefer a Constitutional Republic with a guarantee of individual rights, such as our Bill of Rights ;)

True enough Jerk. If we had majority rule in 1861, the South would have been permitted to leave the Union and slavery probably wouldn't have ended until the advent of mechanized farming.

Scott D
2/24/2008, 07:44 PM
I respectfully dissent. The Constitution does not grant citizens the right to vote for the President or VP. As you probably know, Article II states Electors for the presidential election are appointed by the "manner as the legislature thereof may direct."

Thus, unless a state has some statutory means of tying the popular vote to that of the electors that state appoints to the Electoral College, ordinary citizens lack any role whatsoever in the selection of the president.

The process was amended in 1913 to choose the VP the same way. (XVII Amendment)

I submit, that process, as established by the dead white guys, contributes to the status quo in which presidents are "bought and paid for" before they even take office. I'm afraid it's been that way since the founding of the Republic. See, I don't think the Founders trusted the folks to directly elect their president or vice president in order to help prevent an attractive and compelling "loose cannon" from getting to the Oval Office.

Oh, and BTW, as pointed out last night on SNL, HRC still has the "old white lady" demographic locked up...but she's lost everything else. Hollywood has deserted her and Bill for BHO. Heck, even the Teamsters have gotten on the BHO bandwagon.

The 17th Amendment in that regard is a fallacy in the process of election, and has contributed more to the congestion of the American Government than a majority of aborted laws that have taken effect.

As KC was saying, Alexis de Toqueville has a very good composition in regards to the American system of Government, along with it's strengths and failings. However, that does not alter the fact that your concept of being 'bought and paid for' clearly differs from mine. I would hardly call corporations or special interests any more politically stable or rightfully influential than the people at large. As a matter of fact, it would be a stronger argument that State Government should play a much larger role in the election process than any Corporation or Special Interest group.

The problem at large now, is that the process has failed the people. Whether you wish to accept this as fact is your own matter. The evidence is there, and it isn't just a sudden matter. The process has been failing for decades, and for at least a century. The culmination of that remains a Government that truth be told, needs a PotUS as much as England needs a Monarch.

Chuck Bao
2/24/2008, 07:46 PM
Maybe I'm sensy on this issue because some people, oh say those with tanks and guns and planes, think they have the right to say they know better.

That cannot be the counter argument to democracy.

Okla-homey
2/24/2008, 07:54 PM
OK, so you do know what his positions are, you just don't agree with them or think they're realistic. That's a far cry from "Obama doesn't have any positions on the issues."

example from the issues section of his website:

paraphrasing: "Raise the minimum wage and earned income tax credit so people can support their families on minimum wage jobs."

Now, I ask BHO, by how much? .25 an hour? .47 an hour? $7.37 an hour higher? How much? Of course, he doesn't say. He just says he's "for" it. Frankly, that's great shakes to people who don't own businesses and have to make a payroll.

I will even go out on a limb and say the notion that anyone should be able to provide for the needs of a family on a 40 hour-a-week minimum wage job is a real stretch. Even at $8.00 that's $320 a week gross. Let's go nuts and raise the minimum wage to $10.00. woo-hoo! $400.00 a week. Puhleeze.

Big Rock Candy Mountain

Jerk
2/24/2008, 08:06 PM
example from the issues section of his website:

paraphrasing: "Raise the minimum wage and earned income tax credit so people can support their families on minimum wage jobs."

Now, I ask BHO, by how much? .25 an hour? .47 an hour? $7.37 an hour higher? How much? Of course, he doesn't say. He just says he's "for" it. Frankly, that's great shakes to people who don't own businesses and have to make a payroll.

I will even go out on a limb and say the notion that anyone should be able to provide for the needs of a family on a 40 hour-a-week minimum wage job is a real stretch. Even at $8.00 that's $320 a week gross. Let's go nuts and raise the minimum wage to $10.00. woo-hoo! $400.00 a week. Puhleeze.

Big Rock Candy Mountain

Hell, lets go for $100/hr.

Everyone will be rich :D

Okla-homey
2/24/2008, 08:11 PM
my thoughts below.


The 17th Amendment in that regard is a fallacy in the process of election, and has contributed more to the congestion of the American Government than a majority of aborted laws that have taken effect.
wuh?

I would hardly call corporations or special interests any more politically stable or rightfully influential than the people at large. As a matter of fact, it would be a stronger argument that State Government should play a much larger role in the election process than any Corporation or Special Interest group. You're eating pie in the sky my friend if you don't think state government is even more directly controlled by special interests than the federal gubmint. Right here in Oklahoma, I expect Chesapeake could get just about anything they wanted passed in OKC they set their little ole hearts to. Moreover, if big Oklahoma employers set their cap against the interests of the common folk, who do you think wins in OKC?

The problem at large now, is that the process has failed the people. Whether you wish to accept this as fact is your own matter. The evidence is there, and it isn't just a sudden matter. The process has been failing for decades, and for at least a century. The culmination of that remains a Government that truth be told, needs a PotUS as much as England needs a Monarch.
Look, read Madison, Hamilton and Jay. I respectfully submit you need to accept the fact the Constitution, first and foremost, was ratified to establish the world's first common economic market among several otherwise disparate states. That notion is what motivated the thirteen fiefdoms to come together and form a nation. When you accept its mostly about what's good for business, you'll be able to jettison a lot of righteous angst.

Me? All I want is my right to be left alone, earn what I can, and keep most of what I earn. I'll fight like hell for you to have the same right. I'll even pitch in to give folks who are down and out a hand up. I am not interested however in setting up some kind of workers paradise in which everyone has a job, and everyone's needs are met. That's been tried a few times elsewhere and it was a dismal failure. BHO is as rank a demagogue as I've encountered in my 48 years on the planet.

Frozen Sooner
2/24/2008, 08:15 PM
Reform Social Security: John McCain will fight to save the future of Social Security and believes that we may meet our obligations to the retirees of today and the future without raising taxes. John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts -- but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. John McCain will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will. No problem is in more need of honesty than the looming financial challenges of entitlement programs. Americans have the right to know the truth and John McCain will not leave office without fixing the problems that threatens our future prosperity and power.

So, how you gonna do that, John?

Nothing but fluff and "Big Rock Candy Mountain."

Step 1: Personal Accounts
Step 2: ????
Step 3: SOLVENCY!!!

BigRedJed
2/24/2008, 08:16 PM
Hell, lets go for $100/hr.

Everyone will be rich :D
Yep. Of course, lunch at McDonalds will run $75/person, but never fear; we can just up the minumum wage again to compensate!

Curly Bill
2/24/2008, 08:18 PM
Yep. Of course, lunch at McDonalds will run $75/person, but never fear; we can just up the minumum wage again to compensate!

What have you got against inflation? ;)

JohnnyMack
2/24/2008, 09:54 PM
With all the respect in the world, and I freely admit W's been a dissapointment at times, the man had actually accomplished some stuff. Governing texass can't have been easy. BHO, in contrast, has never "run" anything.

My thing with BHO, apart from his uber-lib-edness, is the fact I can't decipher what he's "for" except the abstract notion of "change."

Change purely for change's sake is rarely a well-advised move. Frankly, I'd like to see the guy put some substance to the platitudes and let us know what he really wants to get done out of the blocks. I agree with HRC that sort of thing has not been forthcoming from the man.

Oh I totally agree that W was much more qualified in 2000 to run for this office than BHO is now. And I'll add that I've always been a fan of a successful Governor over a Senator when it comes to that choice. I hoped like hell that Mark Warner would have run, but he saw the storm clouds brewing on the horizon and didn't think he could sustain hurricane Billary, so he opted out.

BHO has no other choice but to run on an abstract notion of change. He's a 40 something jr. Senator serving his first term. Although I think his platform is much more well designed and thought out than most want to give him credit for. Hillary is touting her many decades of experience, BHO is rallying the nation around his smooth talking message of change. To get elected POTUS you play to your strengths.

jk the sooner fan
2/24/2008, 10:38 PM
i wonder how many of the people voting for BHO are worse off in their personal lives than they were 4 -8 years ago

Scott D
2/24/2008, 10:57 PM
Homey, none of that changes the fact that the people that support Obama do so because he's not what is perceived as being "the same old system". Perhaps Obama being such a 'rising star' so quickly is indicative of the system being broken in the first place. Certainly the 'rise' of Hillary Clinton makes it purely obvious the system is flawed.

Sooner_Bob
2/25/2008, 08:34 AM
Certainly the 'rise' of Hillary Clinton makes it purely obvious the system is flawed.

Truer words have never been posted . . .

Sooner_Bob
2/25/2008, 08:49 AM
example from the issues section of his website:

paraphrasing: "Raise the minimum wage and earned income tax credit so people can support their families on minimum wage jobs."

Now, I ask BHO, by how much? .25 an hour? .47 an hour? $7.37 an hour higher? How much? Of course, he doesn't say. He just says he's "for" it. Frankly, that's great shakes to people who don't own businesses and have to make a payroll.

I will even go out on a limb and say the notion that anyone should be able to provide for the needs of a family on a 40 hour-a-week minimum wage job is a real stretch. Even at $8.00 that's $320 a week gross. Let's go nuts and raise the minimum wage to $10.00. woo-hoo! $400.00 a week. Puhleeze.

Big Rock Candy Mountain


Not that this will fix anything, but he did say this:


Provide a Living Wage: Barack Obama believes that people who work full time should not live in poverty. Before the Democrats took back Congress, the minimum wage had not changed in 10 years. Even though the minimum wage will rise to $7.25 an hour by 2009, the minimum wage's real purchasing power will still be below what it was in 1968. As president, Obama would further raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing -- things so many people take for granted.

I can only assume that to mean that increases in the minimum wage would be similar to the cost of living increases that most folks get.



I'm really starting to see that the hope BO supporters see in BO is what makes him so appealing. He's not your average, wealthy, 60 year old white guy who happens to be running for the Presidency.

Heck, at the present I'm almost to the point of where I need someone to convince to not vote for BO over McCain.

Curly Bill
2/25/2008, 10:02 AM
Not that this will fix anything, but he did say this:



I can only assume that to mean that increases in the minimum wage would be similar to the cost of living increases that most folks get.



I'm really starting to see that the hope BO supporters see in BO is what makes him so appealing. He's not your average, wealthy, 60 year old white guy who happens to be running for the Presidency.

Heck, at the present I'm almost to the point of where I need someone to convince to not vote for BO over McCain.

OK, are you gainfully employed at a better then minimum wage job? If so vote McCain. :D

texas bandman
2/25/2008, 03:31 PM
I'm a Texan who voted for BHO and I intend to show up at my precinct caucus to make my vote truly count. I think that America needs an inspiring leader that gives us hope and the only person gives us that is Barack Obama. Of couse I'm 48 years old, white, and college-educated, so I fit the profile of an Obama voter. I think I'm just ready for an articulate president, something that we haven't had in a while.

SicEmBaylor
2/25/2008, 03:37 PM
I'm a Texan who voted for BHO and I intend to show up at my precinct caucus to make my vote truly count. I think that America needs an inspiring leader that gives us hope and the only person gives us that is Barack Obama. Of couse I'm 48 years old, white, and college-educated, so I fit the profile of an Obama voter. I think I'm just ready for an articulate president, something that we haven't had in a while.

You make me weep for the Republic.

texas bandman
2/25/2008, 03:46 PM
Sorry to make you weep, but I've been weeping for our country for much of the last 8 years.

C&CDean
2/25/2008, 03:52 PM
Sorry to make you weep, but I've been weeping for our country for much of the last 8 years.

Really? Has your life sucked that bad? I can understand being unhappy about living in Texas, but damn man, it must suck to be you.

JohnnyMack
2/25/2008, 03:54 PM
You make me weep for the Republic.

You make me weep for the males of our species.

jk the sooner fan
2/25/2008, 04:05 PM
we dont care that he wants to tax us in to the next millennium to pay for all these wonderful programs, we just like that he's articulate!

brilliant

yermom
2/25/2008, 04:06 PM
but he's only going to tax you and Bruce ;)

jk the sooner fan
2/25/2008, 04:07 PM
exactly

have you ever gotten a paycheck from a poor person?

shaun4411
2/25/2008, 04:22 PM
the whole minimum wage thing is so stupid. why was it such a big deal for them? and for that matter, it seems like that was the ONLY thing the 2006 elected congress did. am i right? the democrat saviors of humanity managed to give mentally retarded and 16 yr old minimum wage earners a raise? so, that whole demographic (6% of the population) would vote for them in 2008?

Sooner_Bob
2/25/2008, 06:27 PM
OK, are you gainfully employed at a better then minimum wage job?

Thankfully I am . . . and to be quite honest, outside of having to pay out the nose for gas I'm not that bad off at all. :D




If so vote McCain. :D


:D

Curly Bill
2/25/2008, 09:19 PM
we dont care that he wants to tax us in to the next millennium to pay for all these wonderful programs, we just like that he's articulate!

brilliant

Well said.

It doesn't matter that he has no substance, or like you said: wants to tax us into the next millennium, we's just like that he talks good. :P

SicEmBaylor
2/25/2008, 09:23 PM
Sorry to make you weep, but I've been weeping for our country for much of the last 8 years.
I have too. Empty platitudes, a well constructed speech, and a polished delivery doesn't mean jack **** though. If Obama thinks he's going to rally the entire nation (including conservatives) with a far-left agenda then he's going to be in for a very rude awakening. In fact, I'm banking on it.

yermom
2/25/2008, 09:24 PM
well, W still got elected with his "strategery"

but yeah, personality and appearances play a big part in the election, even more so since TV became involved

Curly Bill
2/25/2008, 09:25 PM
I have too. Empty platitudes, a well constructed speech, and a polished delivery doesn't mean jack **** though. If Obama thinks he's going to rally the entire nation (including conservatives) with a far-left agenda then he's going to be in for a very rude awakening. In fact, I'm banking on it.

...but he's just so damn articulate! ;) ;)

Frozen Sooner
2/25/2008, 09:36 PM
Well said.

It doesn't matter that he has no substance, or like you said: wants to tax us into the next millennium, we's just like that he talks good. :P

TOTALLY better that we should spend ourselves into debt for the next millenium and not have any real plan to pay for it.

Curly Bill
2/25/2008, 09:38 PM
TOTALLY better that we should spend ourselves into debt for the next millenium and not have any real plan to pay for it.

Sure we have a plan to pay for it...our great grandchildren will pay for it. How's that not a plan?

Frozen Sooner
2/25/2008, 09:40 PM
Sure we have a plan to pay for it...our great grandchildren will pay for it. How's that not a plan?

They won't be able to pay for it. Remember, we're being replaced by jobless immigrants. By the year 2080, nobody will have a job. We'll just sit around voting each other tax cuts all day.

King Crimson
2/25/2008, 09:40 PM
I have too. Empty platitudes, a well constructed speech, and a polished delivery doesn't mean jack **** though.

worked for the Great Communicator. maybe Obama will give Granada a rematch.

Curly Bill
2/25/2008, 09:42 PM
They won't be able to pay for it. Remember, we're being replaced by jobless immigrants. By the year 2080, nobody will have a job. We'll just sit around voting each other tax cuts all day.

...but by 2080 I'll be long gone. :D

King Crimson
2/25/2008, 09:45 PM
...but by 2080 I'll be long gone. :D

no way, Obama will invent these new vitamins. they'll taste like potato chips, get ya drunk like beer and work like Viagra....and you'll still look great in 200$ underarmour shizz.

Frozen Sooner
2/25/2008, 09:47 PM
...but by 2080 I'll be long gone. :D

I'm gonna visit your still-conscious brain in a jar and dip my trouser spheres in your liquid in 2080. Count on it.

Turd_Ferguson
2/25/2008, 09:47 PM
no way, Obama will invent these new vitamins. they'll taste like potato chips, get ya drunk like beer and work like Viagra....and you'll still look great in 200$ underarmour shizz.

IN.

Curly Bill
2/25/2008, 09:50 PM
no way, Obama will invent these new vitamins. they'll taste like potato chips, get ya drunk like beer and work like Viagra....and you'll still look great in 200$ underarmour shizz.

Oh yeah, cause I forgot: Obama was sent from Heaven to cure this country and it's people of whatever troubles them. ;)

Curly Bill
2/25/2008, 09:51 PM
I'm gonna visit your still-conscious brain in a jar and dip my trouser spheres in your liquid in 2080. Count on it.


:eek:

Frozen Sooner
2/25/2008, 09:54 PM
:eek:

Well, it's not like I'm going to have a job. Have to do SOMETHING for fun.

Curly Bill
2/25/2008, 10:05 PM
Well, it's not like I'm going to have a job. Have to do SOMETHING for fun.

If the Obama acolytes have a firm grasp on power you'll be probably be better off not having a job. ;)

texas bandman
2/25/2008, 11:07 PM
why?
We have lost almost 4,000 brave young men and women in a war we shouldn't be in to start with. We spend $35,000,000,000 a month on this elective war to the detriment of our own citizens. In the last 8 years, the disparity between the haves and the have-nots has widened. The rich get richer and the poor just try to stay afloat as they watch their jobs being outsourced overseas. The compassionate conservative that was elected in 2000 was neither compassionate nor fiscally conservative. He gave a Republican Congress an open check book the first six years of his presidency and the pork flowed and he never once used his veto power. But when a Democratic Congress tried to expand CHIP,to help insure the nation's children, his veto pen suddenly came to life. You wonder why the country is so deeply divided? It is certaily a reason to be sad.

yermom
2/25/2008, 11:22 PM
4,000 young men and women?

that's nothing for cheap oil... one of these days...

Okla-homey
2/26/2008, 07:04 AM
:confused:


We have lost almost 4,000 brave young men and women in a war we shouldn't be in to start with. Opinions vary of course. this one is yours. At last half the country feels otherwise.

We spend $35,000,000,000 a month on this elective war to the detriment of our own citizens. Precisely how is military spending and/or spending to establish viable and secular governments in Afghanistan and Iraq "to the detriment of our citizens?" Because we are not pouring that money down federal social program ratholes? Oh, and for the record, all wars are "elective" because a country always has two options: fight or cave.

In the last 8 years, the disparity between the haves and the have-nots has widened. That old chestnut is trotted out, often by both sides, every single election cycle, yet where's the proof? Its really just an unsubstantiated soundbite. hyperbole.

The rich get richer and the poor just try to stay afloat as they watch their jobs being outsourced overseas. Throughout history, as the world changed, people have had to be capable of evolving in order to do well. As our economy has moved from being based on manufacturing to services, people have had to keep up or lose their jobs. That said, there are lots of decent paying jobs that can never be "outsourced" people won't or can't do because they either don't have the training/education or they'd rather lay around and b1tch about their job being outsourced. e.g. nursing. As boomers age, and the average age of RN's in this country approaches 45, we simply don't have nearly enough. So much so that even in Oklahoma, hospitals are engaged in international recruiting to bring foreign nurses here to work. Just last week the medical center where my wife works spent a week in London trying to persuade British nurses to move to Tulsa. Bottomline, if your job building widgets goes to China, its best to be rational about it and figure out how to do something else. There are vast amounts of federal educational grants and student loans available for anyone who wants to take advantage of them

The compassionate conservative that was elected in 2000 was neither compassionate nor fiscally conservative. He gave a Republican Congress an open check book the first six years of his presidency and the pork flowed and he never once used his veto power. But when a Democratic Congress tried to expand CHIP,to help insure the nation's children, his veto pen suddenly came to life. Yep, W allowed Congress to spend way too much on various entitlement programs during his first term. Good thing he finally woke up. Tell me this though. Can you point to a child in this country who needs medical care who can't get it through existing state and/or federal programs?

You wonder why the country is so deeply divided? It is certaily a reason to be sad.

SweetheartSooner
2/26/2008, 01:45 PM
The rich get richer and the poor just try to stay afloat as they watch their jobs being outsourced overseas. Throughout history, as the world changed, people have had to be capable of evolving in order to do well. As our economy has moved from being based on manufacturing to services, people have had to keep up or lose their jobs. That said, there are lots of decent paying jobs that can never be "outsourced" people won't or can't do because they either don't have the training/education or they'd rather lay around and b1tch about their job being outsourced. e.g. nursing. As boomers age, and the average age of RN's in this country approaches 45, we simply don't have nearly enough. So much so that even in Oklahoma, hospitals are engaged in international recruiting to bring foreign nurses here to work. Just last week the medical center where my wife works spent a week in London trying to persuade British nurses to move to Tulsa. Bottomline, if your job building widgets goes to China, its best to be rational about it and figure out how to do something else. There are vast amounts of federal educational grants and student loans available for anyone who wants to take advantage of them

Not to mention the excessive regulation of businesses in America. With BHO, we can expect even more jobs to be outsourced to foreign countries since he seems to want to regulate even more.

soonerscuba
2/26/2008, 02:03 PM
When was the time going to come when we would cave against Iraq? Cuba? China? Grenada?

I don't disagree with the notion of starting a war and pillaging resources, but let's not baby the populace with fancy notions of freedom and rainbows. That said, Bush will always get a good grade to me when it comes to Afghanistan.

JohnnyMack
2/26/2008, 02:05 PM
Not to mention the excessive regulation of businesses in America. With BHO, we can expect even more jobs to be outsourced to foreign countries since he seems to want to regulate even more.

Since he opposes both CAFTA and NAFTA (in its current form) I'd have to disagree with you. Losing jobs overseas isn't generally a product of policies set forth by Donk Presidents. They love the workin' man. Remember?

Okla-homey
2/26/2008, 02:41 PM
Since he opposes both CAFTA and NAFTA (in its current form) I'd have to disagree with you. Losing jobs overseas isn't generally a product of policies set forth by Donk Presidents. They love the workin' man. Remember?

NAFTA was inked by WJC.

just sayin'

SweetheartSooner
2/26/2008, 02:47 PM
Since he opposes both CAFTA and NAFTA (in its current form) I'd have to disagree with you. Losing jobs overseas isn't generally a product of policies set forth by Donk Presidents. They love the workin' man. Remember?


That is something I don't understand about Obama. From http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/ :
"Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs"

And I totally agree with that statement.

But then a few lines down it says:
"Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

What does that mean? What exactly does he want to do with NAFTA? To me, it seems like Obama wants to restrict American business from outsourcing/relocating to Mexico. If that is the case, then the second statement contradicts the first statement. That's not free trade in the classical sense. If someone with better world economics skills/knowledge could explain that to me, that would be awesome.

But to me, it seems like if we follow the Obama Plan and we abolish/amend NAFTA and bring jobs back to the US - the American companies are going to be regulated heavily or they'll be funded by a grant of government subsidies or they'll be taxed to death ect. ect.



The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training.

Obama will create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025

Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage

He will expand the FMLA

Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems

Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs

See the others at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/


All that stuff sounds great, but it costs money. Ultimately, all that money will be coming from us, either as a taxpayer or as a consumer.

Anyhoo, the fact remains that the cost of producing widgets in America is still going to be higher than the cost producing widgets in China/Mexico/Other Foreign Country. The Chinese people won't buy American widgets, they'll buy Chinese widgets. And Americans aren't going to buy American widgets because the Chinese widgets are cheaper. Since we're currently sitting at a massive trade deficit already, I'm not seeing how Obama would help the economy. I think he'll make it 1,000,000 x worse. He will also make my pocketbook smaller. And that's not cool.

** of course, in reality, it's not as simple as that. There are other factors such as inflation, rate of growth of GDP, ect. ect. that need to be considered. But excessive regulation does not help American companies by any means.

JohnnyMack
2/26/2008, 03:21 PM
NAFTA was inked by WJC.

just sayin'

True. Written by Bush I. Signed by the DINO.

SleestakSooner
3/26/2008, 04:09 PM
I have. IMHO, its all "Big Rock Candy Mountain" stuff. I mean some feasible goals for America.

Killing all the lawyers and lobbyists may actually be feasible. ;)

Chuck Bao
3/26/2008, 04:43 PM
Yeah, a lot of it is doublespeak.

But, please consider this, SweetheartSooner: the Democrats are in a much better position to negotiate on trade issues with foreign trade partners than the Republicans.

The way I see it is like this:

1) Both parties are clearly for free trade.

2) Both parties have to make the case that unfair trade practices occur due to lack of fair wages or employee disenfranchisement in the developing world, environmental controls, and artificially set exchange rates.

3) The Republicans can’t effectively argue the above while simultaneously trying to argue to reduce the US standards.

4) I can’t abide by the notion that the US lowers its standards to the developing world to compete. I much prefer that idea that the developing world which is growing richer by the day is forced to bring its standards up to a reasonable level.

5) There is a free trade argument, and clearly we all benefit from competitive advantages and lower priced products. There is also the ideal that is as American as apple pie: consumers have the right not to buy the product on moral grounds.

6) The Republican administration over the last 7 years has failed and failed quite badly.