Obama Wins!

So majority rule is GOOD when the popular vote creates a law against same-sex marriage which the courts (rightfully) struck down, and those darn "activist judges" are at fault for ignoring the will of the people, but when 53% of the American people vote in favor of a (horrors!) Democrat, THEN it's an "oligarchy" and those poor unrepresented folks need protection?

Dude, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Pick an ideology and stick with it, please; don't just recite nonsensical talking points.

We just had several terms of a Republican President combined with a Republican majority in Congress. They screwed the pooch. Now it's the other side's turn.

 

I apologize for the double-post, but I encountered this while reading back through the thread and I was, frankly, appalled.

That's not how economics works. Just... flat out wrong. Will higher taxes lead to higher prices? Certainly, things will go up a bit all around. However, claiming that "Big Business doesn't pay taxes" is oversimplifying things to a ridiculous degree. A business cannot pass on all of its tax burden to its consumers, or it won't HAVE any consumers.

Frankly, Obama's proposed taxes and reforms are hardly excessive compared to other countries in the world (who don't seem to have all been fired and starved to death yet), nor even compared to the way they have been in America itself in the past. Claiming that Obama is going to destroy the economy or get anyone fired is fearmongering bugaboo-breeding. (Unless you work for NaCl, I guess.)

America has enjoyed fuel prices that are substantially lower than the actual cost of fuel for quite some time, and we've used it to our advantage. It had to catch up to us sooner or later.

And so am I, and so are most people who actually understand the situation.

1) The U.S. does not contain even a significant fraction of the oil it uses. Even if we drained ourselves dry, we'd still have to import more.

2) Even if we started drilling TODAY, we wouldn't see an effect on gas prices for seven years or more.

3) Oil is a NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE. When it runs out, it runs out, and there won't BE any more. Is it in danger of running out tomorrow? Five years from now? Ten years from now? No, probably not. Should we therefore ignore the fact that it's GOING to run out because our SUVs are costing too much to refill?

4) Oil drilling is dirty and dangerous, and is a terrible idea from an environmental standpoint.

And Obama isn't even that terribly opposed! After hearing more from advisors, Obama has agreed that limited offshore drilling might be necessary. He still opposes drilling in the Wildlife Refuge, for the simple reason that it's a FREAKING WILDLIFE REFUGE. Honestly, I always thought Captain Planet villains were, y'know, crazy exaggerated mockeries.

Um... no, he's not. He advocates for stringent safety measures and for safe disposal, but he's not opposed to nuclear power in principle.

Obama's energy policy is focused on reducing the DEMAND for oil rather than increasing the SUPPLY, through more efficient engines, biofuels, and an emphasis on renewable energy. If you remember your basic economics, that will end up with CHEAPER gasoline either way.

Well, you're not wrong about his policies, I suppose. I'll save the debate on basic human rights and the separation of church and state for the Gay Marriage thread, where I've already made my point thoroughly.

Proof or get out. Otherwise, this is nonsensical fear-mongering. (Again, I'll note.)

I'm trying really hard not to call names or make insinuations about relative intelligence here. No comment.

(Psst: Try looking up the word "diplomacy" in your dictionary. No, not the board game.)

Here is the full text. Jihad Watch, for reference, is a fringe group of borderline racists. Their opinion doesn't hold a lot of weight in most circles.

You spend two paragraphs telling us this. No one argues that there are still extremist terrorist groups out there and that there is a risk for another attack.

Diplomacy and preparedness for an attack are not mutually exclusive. One can have security AND peace. Being willing to engage in diplomatic relations will DECREASE the risk of an attack. The issue is extremists and radicals; if the US is warlike and aggressive, we create more extremists and radicals by causing more moderate members of the groups to reconsider their neutral stance. Diplomacy is a way to encourage the moderates among the Islamic factions.

This is kindergarten territory. Who gets in more fights: the friendly kid who shares his lunch and toys or the loudmouth kid who pitches a fit every time a classmate disagrees with him? (We'll leave the question of how big and muscled the kid is as a separate issue; that'd be military strength, for you metaphor-watchers at home.)

Jeremiah Wright took advantage of the spotlight to get more extreme. Obama repudiated him when he did this. Continuing to bring it up is a titch on the obsessive side.

Pro Tip: Fox News should not be your only source of current events. Try to ingest a balanced media diet, taken from several different sources to minimize the ideological taint. At least you didn't bring up the laughable Ayers nonsense.

No one is making a case for illegal immigration. Some people are advocating reforming the approach the US takes towards legal immigration and how we deal with illegals.

Aaaand hate speech. There went the last shreds of your believability. Wave bye-bye.

Illegal immigration is not an unethical action in and of itself (even assuming one subscribes to the belief that homosexuality - or even adultery - are inherently immoral.) It is illegal, of course, but there is no moral value involved in crossing a national boundary. Your equation of these various activities is misleading, not to mention faintly racist and/or homophobic.

No one said it was. No, not even Obama.

A little research successfully turned this from Non Sequitur Theater into, well, at least a coherent thought. I believe this is what you're referring to. You'll notice that Obama's actual words were that Dobbs and Limbaugh were "ginning things up." He did not call them racist, but implied that their actions were fueling a racist hatred.

You can argue with that stance, certainly, but don't misrepresent it, please. It makes your position look very poorly thought out. Your whole argument here is fundamentally a straw man based on "Obama called Dobbs a racist," which a quick review of the facts reveals to be an exaggerated claim at best.

Those two statements are completely unrelated. To my knowledge, Obama has not once advocated giving social security to illegal immigrants. Here is his official platform on immigration; about the "softest" position I could see is advocating keeping immigrant families together while they are being deported. This seems like basic human kindness to me.

I suppose you're ranting about the suggestion that illegal immigrants in good standing be allowed to pay a fine and be put in line for applications for citizenship. You do realize that "in good standing" means "working" and therefore "paying taxes". These are hardly the slavering, indolent layabouts of your nightmare scenario.

 

Nonsense....as usual from you.

1. Judicial activism overturned 108 years of precedent. The voters rejected that behavior. As far as your reference to the gay marriage issue, it is obvious you can't understand the difference between Judicial will and the will of the people.


2. When one party "rule" prevents any effective representation for all the dissenting citizens, then "democracy" has transformed into a dictatorship by 51%. The logical next step is insurrection by those who are being deprived of a say in their government. I wonder if we might see domestic terrorism in the US for the first time since Obama's good buddy bombed the Pentagon.

3. Wake up...the Democrats have controlled Congress for the past four years. When Bush attempted to do something about our borders, Democrats prevented it. Democrats under the leadership of Pelosi and Reed gave us the initial foundation for the housing collapse. While Bush pushed tax cuts the Demos were busy spending OUR money like drunken sailors, bankrupting the future for our children...I guess you were asleep and missed it.

As far as my "ideology", it is simple...true democracy with all people having meaningful say in government. As a lifetime registered Democrat, I have supported many liberal agendas, but my party has gone too far, decaying into socialism and democracy itself is at risk under a possible dictatorship by 51%. If you can't understand that, then there is nothing more I can offer for your education.

 

Let's be honest here. Obama WAS elected through racism. The black community collectively voted solely on the basis of skin color while Hillary and McCain carefully avoided and refuted any racist content in their campaigns. The margin of victory directly reflects that racial vote from one element of our society. Look at the polling data. I guess that means racism is alive and well...and soon to be in the White House.

 

No...not on my beloved writing forum. What kind of person dares post anything even remotely political on a forum full of writers?

 

answer...a fool who dares to think that voicing disagreement just might provoke thought.

 

The system of judicial review (along with the electoral college and other artifacts) was created to prevent popular opinion - notoriously volatile, even in those days - from overturning the rule of law. Judges operate based solely on the Constitution.

Your "108 years of precedent" was predicated solely on the fact that no one had previously TRIED to legalize gay marriage. Someone raised a fuss; there was panic; judges consulted the constitution; the law was overturned. That's how the system works.

Again, here you're supporting the "will of the people" over the "judicial will," while later repudiating the "oligarchy of 51%." I've already explained how judicial review works as opposed to popular decisions, and how the legislative branch and the judicial branch interact. Why is it bad for judges to ignore the "will of the people" (like they're SUPPOSED to) if it's also bad when the leadership (also chosen by the "will of the people") reflects a shifting trend towards one side or the other?

Either the majority should rule or it shouldn't. Pick a side.

 

This was all about Obama's electoral win.

I think where starting to go a little astray dont you think...

Going down a pah that doesnt realy need going over.

 

at least you all can talk about politics openly. in my country we dont even think about it....

 

I voted for McCain. I have no regrets.

I do not agree with Obama on a number of things. His theories for cutting taxes are wishful thinking at best. He voted against a bill prohibiting hospitals from murdering infants that had survived abortion attempts. Not quietly euthanized, but left in soiled linen or on comfort room shelves and allowed to die. His wife has a bone to pick with Whites as a whole, and his Rev. Wright.... not going there.

His campaign has resorted to many bad things in order to secure a victory. He paid ACORN 800,000$ to start Barack The Vote. Barack The Vote also included registering the dead, paying citizens to register many times, under false identities, even.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, who of course we got to witness sobbing obnoxiously, mugging the camera for the tortured home audience, has threatened 'civil disturbance' (riots and looting), in the event of an Obama loss, and threatened similar action against radio stations that dared to play McCain ads.

Obama disrespected the 9/11 Ground Zero memorial. I find that highly offensive, because I lost my paternal Uncle in the tragedy, God rest his soul. He has lied and contradicted himself numerous times. There are many, many examples of this you can find, and before you accuse me of being ill-informed about the man, I read both of his books and have been to three Obama rallies, as well as watched numerous Expose's and television interviews.

Now, he has won the title of President-Elect. There is nothing I can personally do about this, because I have no intention of harming the man. I cannot say the same for all people in this country, but I do not harbor any personal anger towards him, simply dislike. He has offended me and my family, as well as other families struck by the terrible,tragic losses suffered on September 11, 2001, and is wrong when he claims that this War in Iraq is a mistake.

I do not agree with all of the reasons why this war started, but I have nothing but love and respect for every, single man and woman that make up our American Heroes. And yes, ALL members of the Armed Forces are American Heroes, from the man that holds the front lines of battle to the woman that files papers in the Recruiting office. I do not care if they are liberating Sudan tomorrow or fetching a turkey sandwich with lettuce. They have my full support, and I would gladly join them. I was kept out of the Air Force by a synthetic implant in my left eye that improved my bad vision.

Barack Obama is not the man for this country. He may have won the election, but he is not MY President, no matter what he claims. Yes, we may want different from what we have had for the past eight years, but John McCain was different as well. McBush. McSame. I have heard all of the nicknames. Obama is neither the Messiah nor the next Coming of the Son of God. The only consolation I have is that I know he will not screw up too badly - because all eyes are on him at this point.

What Obama does not truly understand, through ALL of his wheels and deals, campaigning, slogans, television ads and speeches is one, true thought that unites True Americans.

Freedom is not free at all.

 

That is too close to defamation.

Everyone needs to calm down. I don't mind you disagreeing, and I don't mind you discussing your disagreement, but this is getting very close to being flaming, and I will not hesitate to close this thread, and infract whoever is responsible, if that happens. You have all been warned.

 

No defamation intended. Defamation involves false statements for the purpose of harming someone's reputation. My statement only presents facts and my genuine concern.

Facts: The FBI identified William Ayers and the organization he participated in (The Weather Underground) as "domestic terrorists" and they did engage in bombings. Obama's long duration working relationship with Ayers is also well documented.

I do not approve of domestic terrorism nor do I feel such actions are needed to deal with the threats I feel from the Obama situation. I am firmly in the belief that as he attempts to impose high taxes and government control of people's lives on the public, people will begin to see the truth about him and his power base will begin to erode within two years. My biggest concern is potential for conservative backlash...to include violence. Do you remember Timothy McVey? His anti-government actions killed dozens of innocent people in Oklahoma city and I do not want disenfranchised Americans to copy such protests. That is the concern expressed in my post because it is a real possibility when desperate people have no hope.

As far as the "good buddy" snip, yes, that is intentional sarcasm directed at Obama...sorry if it offended you.

Also, I will be making no further comments on this or any other threads related to Obama. I've already wasted too much time floggin a dead horse...LOL. I have a business to run and lots of planning to do to survive the next two years.

 

Gee, I noted how this issue has been carefully avoided by the Obama fans. The truth that the fellow is not 'change' but in actuality, just another politician...golly who'd of thought.

 

That's my worry Terry. That so many people have jumped on the bandwagon, and are so enamoured with him, that he could not fulfill his promises, and no one would call him out on it.

 

Many congratulations to Obama,the liable and novel president of the broad USA.

 

Excuse me? Im not sure Im all that clear on what your trying to say here.

So is the chance you take when you get in your car every day.

Since when did association prove or disprove guilt? I might be great friends with a stoner, but I don't rip. I might be mates with graffiti artists or petty thiefs but I am neither. I might be friends with a terrorist but Im not a terrorist.

Some of the things being said in here are rather silly. I think that America is better off going a different direction that Bush version 2.0. May not come off, but I think I'd take the gamble. That or vote greens.

 

Obama won't be able to meet the world's expectations and his presidency will probably be one marked by an opening optimism and a closing disappointment. The guy can't really win. The world can, though, as it is relief enough to know that in a few month's time the title Commander in Chief and the launch codes will belong to someone else.

 

This thread has become a bit too volatile. Everyone has strong opinions, butthere have already been some people offended by some of the opinions.

In the interest of peace, I am closing the thread at this time, and I hope everyone will be able to set aside any resentment they may free toward other members over the opinions expressed.

I don't believe anyone has intended any offense, but politics is a little too touchy, and right now the emotions are too close to the surface.