Author Topic: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"  (Read 3614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DKEN

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2012, 09:45:34 AM »
When the government says ...Yes, it is called theft. 

Apparently your perspective is government - even a democratically elected one - is an abject failure on all levels.  I don't see it that way.  Is there anything at all that you think the government does well or at least, not with total incompetence?  Do you understand what "government" is supposed to be for?  Do you understand the concept of a "country"?
     I don't see the government in America as an "abject failure" either.  In the USA we have a written constitution that lays out the limits of what the Federal government is allowed.  It is just that simple. 
     The Federal government is to protect our borders, keep a common currency and keep our money sound, and deliver the mail.  When the Feds can do those things well, they live up to the standard set for the Federal Government in our Constitution.  All of the other do gooder stuff mentioned are for the States to cover or individuals to care for inside their own families or as a charitable venture.
     I believe in a roll for a Federal Government in America.  It is layed out in the Constitution of the United States.  It only becomes unnecessary when it over steps it's boundaries.
 
Obviously, he won't answer that question. Worse, he can't answer that question because doing so would require him to admit that there is something functional about government and violate the absolutist meme he subscribes to. First, he is likely to enjoy a strong defense, much of which he cannot grasp is done by government -- he probably just thinks it stands on its own. Second, he can't admit that without the government he abhors, he wouldn't have the ability to complain about the government itself. Third, without the government we have had for 200+ years, he would likely be speaking Spanish at this time, and we know how those anti-government types love Spanish-speakers ...
     Firstly, I love Spanish speakers and the language itself.  Mexico is one of the best places to visit.  The freedom of speech that you refer to, secondly, I have the highest reverence for.  Without it we become a totalitarian oligarchic regime.  BTW, those are God given rights, and our Government only secures them for us. 
     If that same government "gave" us those rights, the government could take them away.  Freedom of speech, again, is something that I know where it came from and I am grateful to be born at the time I was and where. 
     Lastly, I believe in a strong defense.  That is something that our Federal Government is Constitutionally ordained to do.  Viva la Military.  Now if they would just secure those pesky borders...........   

Offline DKEN

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2012, 09:59:36 AM »
Welcome to the forums, Dken. 

I must say that I'm a little taken aback by someone who posts for the first time in an online community, and in the very first sentence finds a way to insult "most of the folks" on the site, based on a couple of random and isolated statement.  You appear to be attempting to establish yourself as intellectually superior to the majority of members here.  It will be interesting to see how that plays out. 

     I'm sorry if I sound like I am trying to insult anyone on this site.  Debate only happens when an opposing party disagrees, no?  If there are no opposing arguments, then you have, only, a mutual aid society.
     If it sounds as if I am "attempting to establish myself as intellectually superior" to members of this site, that is not my desire.  There seems to be people on this site that can think their way out of a paper bag, which in our under educated society, is rare.  Speaking ideas used to be the norm in our country, and that is one of the evidences that lead me to view evolutionary thinking as wishful, at best.  Our intellectual universe is shrinking, not expanding. 
     If you read the volumes of material written by even common people of the 17th century, you will find that modern man has lost, not gained, intellectual capacity.  That would be devotional.


Quote
     When the government says that you were going to have to give over half of all you are acquiring to to the government so that they can keep a lot, mis-spend it, then give some to other bureaucrats, who keep a bunch, and then give what's left  to the poverty pimps, who keep their cut, and finally give a pittance to some poor schlep who did not have the drive or ambition to go out and get it for themselves in a country where people from other countries, who can not even speak the language, become well off in 5 to 10 years, would that not be a crime?  Yes, it is called theft. 


I look forward to hearing more about your economic theories.  I am especially curious to hear you offer examples of citizens who are asked to give "over half" of all they are acquiring to the government.  I am not familiar with any sector of society that is asked to pay that sort of a tax rate.  And those in the higher income brackets have many opportunities to shelter income, depreciate investments on paper, and pay a significantly lower tax rate on their total income than most very low income familes. 

Or do I misunderstand completely?  Is this all about lottery winners? 

Finally, I'm sure that many of us look forward to hearing about your beliefs concerning supernatural dieties.  I am off to the park with my little one, so I won't be around until later to read your responses. 
 


quotes fixed as best as I can figure out.  DKEN please go to the quoting tutorial and learn to use the quote function correctly.  See my sig for a link.
~Screwtape
« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 12:28:36 PM by screwtape »

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2012, 06:45:53 PM »


Speaking ideas used to be the norm in our country, and that is one of the evidences that lead me to view evolutionary thinking as wishful, at best.  Our intellectual universe is shrinking, not expanding. 
     If you read the volumes of material written by even common people of the 17th century, you will find that modern man has lost, not gained, intellectual capacity.  That would be devotional.


The 17th century?  Not sure where you are from, but my country (the USA) did not exist in the 17th century. 

And perhaps I am intellectually deprived, but honestly, I admit I am not familiar with many 17th century authors.  I suppose Shakespeare and Cervantes count, though they are more 16th than 17th century.  They are certainly acclaimed, and considered among the world's most gifted authors, social critics and observers of human nature.   Not exactly representative of the common people of their era.

I'm a huge fan of the work of Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz.   And I suppose she could be considered a "common person" due to the fact that she was born to an unmarried woman.  But centuries later, she is still considered one of the greatest intellects of the colonial era of the Americas, and even more of an anomaly given that she was a woman.   

But I'm puzzled.  Or perhaps I am ignorant.  Who are these other "common people" of the 17th century that you speak of, and who you cite as being examples of what you call our "devolution?" 

In the colonies of the Americas, literacy was mostly limited to land-owning men.  Women married to land owning men had a literacy rate that was low, and white indentured servants, black slaves and the rare black free people, and the indigenous people of the Americas had dismally low literacy rates.  And since paper and ink were relatively rare and expensive, and published works even rarer, I think it is fair to say that anything published to anyone outside of the white, male, elite classes was extrodinarily rare. 

And because blogs and online forums and fan fiction publishing sites  were not available to anyone, let alone the masses, the only published works that survived were for the most part, exceptional.  To compare these works to the random writings of the "common people" of the 21st century would not result in a parallel comparison, and I cannot imagine that anyone could adequately argue that a comparison of literature from the two eras demonstrates this "devolution."   

So while I share your concerns about the intellectual pursuits of the majority of literate first world residents in this century, I cannot support your premise that our "intellectual universe is shrinking." 


Offline rickymooston

Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2012, 06:56:42 PM »
This guy Ricketts is the founder of TDAmeritrade as well as owner of the Chicago Cubs.  He is Catholic and went to a very small Catholic High School (Lourdes) in Nebraska City, Ne.  I think he also cut some kids hair while in high school.  Anyhow, he is a billionaire.  What is it with these guys?  They have more money than they can ever spend yet they will pump millions into stuff like this just to make sure they make more.  Even if the majority has to suffer as a result.

The majority is not obligated to listen to the ad. The ad might work. And one can understand the impact of tbat out of context sermon.

The debt likely is a legit concern. Objectively soeaking, combining bushs two wars with the stimulous was expensive   http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

What will Romney change?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 07:12:36 PM by rickymooston »
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline pingnak

Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2012, 07:36:39 PM »
He'll change who the tidal wave of money goes to.  Kill the health care, then spend 3x that budget on MORE 'defense'.  Probably start a war with Iran, too.

You know, just do the things he said he would.

Offline rickymooston

Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2012, 07:39:12 PM »
He'll change who the tidal wave of money goes to.  Kill the health care, then spend 3x that budget on MORE 'defense'.  Probably start a war with Iran, too.

You know, just do the things he said he would.

If my memory serves me correctly, romney was smart enough not to promise wsr with iran.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5379
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2012, 07:45:28 PM »
bm
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10413
  • Darwins +185/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2012, 08:06:01 PM »
No Child Left Behind was another program by Bush that was not funded.  I think it was Dick C. who said the deficit was of no importance.

Anyhow, its not so much what Romney would do (though that is bad enough).  Its that he would unleash the republicans in congress to rape whats left of the middle class and poor.  Programs to help (unemployment insurance, health insurance, SS, and Medicare, along with free clinics, food stamps, WIC, and on and on would be cut to the bone or eliminated altogether. 

The only way out of this depression...and that is what it is...is to have massive government spending.  I know...we all have been brainwashed to think that is bad. In this situation it is not.  The problem with the stimulus was that it was one fifth of what it should have been.  When all else is stuck government must lead the way.  Romney will never do this.  I think Obama would if he could.

Obama makes me feel good about being an American.  Romney is a con man.  How can the people who caused this mess we are in (the 1%) be so strong to get one of their own elected?
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12524
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2012, 08:29:21 PM »
^'Cause the vast majority of people, whn talking about politics, are idiots. As I've stated: they punish their leaders but in the end, they just punish themselves by eleccting the people who do not have their best interests.

And they do it every time.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2012, 11:13:01 PM »
The freedom of speech that you refer to, secondly, I have the highest reverence for.  Without it we become a totalitarian oligarchic regime.  BTW, those are God given rights, and our Government only secures them for us.

The "god" you speak of doesn't grant rights to anyone. Rights are granted to individuals by the people collectively, enumerated and codified in the US Constitution (for those readers who live in the USA). The word "god" does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution nor in any amendment. The word "religion" appears only twice, the first time stating that there is no religious test for holding office and the second time stating that Congress shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion. So much for your assertion that the government secures god-given rights to us.

Let me clarify with a really simple, idiot-proof example that you are wrong ...  The First Amendment allows you to express your original thoughts to whomever may want to hear them. The First Amendment gives you the right to speak "May God Be Damned And May He Burn In The Depths of Hell For Eternity!!" However, your "god" commands that you "shall not take the lord's name in vain." Obviously, the US Constitution containing those pesky little god-given rights of which you speak and supposedly it supports, is in direct contradiction with your god's wishes. Nowhere does your god grant you or anyone else the right to diminish him in any way.

If you wish to live in Fantasyland by believing that your god grants rights that the US Constitution "secures" for everyone else, go right ahead. Continue to believe in ghosts, faeries, unicorns and whatever else your fellow fanatics can conjure.



If that same government "gave" us those rights, the government could take them away.  Freedom of speech, again, is something that I know where it came from and I am grateful to be born at the time I was and where.

With some specific restrictions, since the US Constitution was ratified the government cannot take away your rights. This has nothing to do with any "god", but I can tell that you will refuse to recognize that there is no connection between the two. See above.


     Lastly, I believe in a strong defense.  That is something that our Federal Government is Constitutionally ordained to do.  Viva la Military.  Now if they would just secure those pesky borders...........   

NEWSFLASH! ... The government is constitutionally ordained to do a lot of things

Quote
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I emphasized the phrase that I can tell you cannot tolerate, it comes right after provide for the common defence. It allows taxes to be used for things other than defense, you know, like the general welfare: education, libraries, roads, medical care, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ...
John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline DKEN

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2012, 07:40:14 AM »
The "general welfare" clause of the Constitution does not give our government, in the USA, the right to just "do anything."  If it does, then the paper means nothing.  The contention, then, stems from the disagreement on just what it does mean by the phrase "to promote the general welfare."  This is just the sticking point that is being hammered out in the political arena today.  Because you tend to not believe in the God of the Bible (Big "G" God), you tend to the Left.  That does not mean that you (in the plural "you" sense) don't believe in something spiritual, just not the Bible or the Bible's God.  Conservatism really starts there.  I don't have more time, so I have to go. 

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2012, 08:55:55 AM »
The "general welfare" clause of the Constitution does not give our government, in the USA, the right to just "do anything."  If it does, then the paper means nothing.  The contention, then, stems from the disagreement on just what it does mean by the phrase "to promote the general welfare."  This is just the sticking point that is being hammered out in the political arena today.

I will make a small presumption here that people like you just don't like the government doing anything unrelated to bombing other countries or torturing people to obtain information of little value. None of the countries we invaded attacked us. Maybe you kind has woken up to this fact as I can see that your only mention of defense is protecting our borders from the Spanish-speaking aliens that are taking the jobs here that nobody wants or will do. The next time you eat almonds, peanuts, strawberries, lettuce, peaches, etc., you can thank a Spanish-speaker who crossed the border for that job, for 9 times out of 10 that's the hand that picked your food.

On the other hand, I like the benefits my government gives to me and I wish we could have a few more. Imagine what spending a trillion dollars on a state-of-the-art high-speed mag-lev railway would do for transportation in the US! Washington DC to New York City in an hour! Imagine being able to choose the work you do without having to worry about what health care benefits it provides! Imagine being able to get an education without going $100K in debt!  Imagine!  Warren Buffet, who I assume you despise, is a conservative fellow who thinks everyone, especially in higher income brackets, aren't paying their fair share of taxes. When Mr Buffet wrote that open letter to his wealthy brethren, you probably thought he walked into your house and shat on your couch.

You are unable to divorce god from government. Yet, it's odd that you think the US government secures god-given rights and then you proclaim that we should have less government. Ergo, we should have less god? Worse, conservatives wish to pass laws enforcing their religious beliefs on others, thereby creating more government. You are logically inconsistent even from your own viewpoint.


  Because you tend to not believe in the God of the Bible (Big "G" God), you tend to the Left.

... and just because you believe in god means you tend to the right ... I'm not sure what the point of that remark was. However, I do not view myself as right or left but rather as progressive. I prefer to see our society make progress on all sorts of fronts: engineering, biology, chemistry, social, transportation and general exploration and discovery.

You would rather revert to a feudalistic system in which we have to beg rich people to do things for us and hope that they find it in their interests to cooperate. You cannot gain rights by that method. But, you can ignore history if you like. Believing in a god is not freedom, it's enslavement.


That does not mean that you (in the plural "you" sense) don't believe in something spiritual, just not the Bible or the Bible's God.  Conservatism really starts there.  I don't have more time, so I have to go.

I believe in the human spirit. We are each filled with desires and drives, most of which can lead to very productive results. I do not believe in any external force working its magic upon us.

Conservatism doesn't start in believing in god or the bible, for if it did there wouldn't be conservatives who are atheists (which, in fact, there are many more than you realize). Conservatism is about questioning the need for change and engaging it slowly and methodically, albeit begrudgingly. Conservatism is not about religiosity, but we are well aware that right-wing religious folk have tried to co-opt a political position for their religious beliefs.

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline shnozzola

Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2012, 09:58:19 AM »
DKEN, Id like you to read this article about current world financial problems

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/business/in-economic-deluge-a-world-thats-unable-to-bail-together.html

If you would, take a step back from your belief in a god, and realize how hard humanity constantly debates, argues, plots and plans the best strategies for going forward – from 2 men on a beach in North Carolina ironing out the problems with their flying contraption, to the current financial globalization birth pains we are all going through as the article above shows, to the science behind the new smart bomb that attacks breast cancer .

I know a favorite saying among theists is, “ the lord helps those that help themselves,” (sigh – what a cop out) but -- what is happening, what has always happened, and what will continue to happen, is, humanity will struggle ahead as it always has, and find a way.  We’ve been lucky enough so far - cooler heads have prevailed. 

If you’ve suspended your belief in a god as I’ve suggested, and realized that what is going on here on the little planet in the Milky Way galaxy, is really much more interesting than if an omnipotent god that could snap fingers had done it all.  Understand, as a theist for many, many years, I thought as you do, but just this once, stand in other shoes (if god exists, he’s big enough to handle your few minutes of doubt) and view things from an angle that makes our decisions infinitely more important.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 10:02:59 AM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline DKEN

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2012, 01:57:11 PM »
DKEN, Id like you to read this article about current world financial problems

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/business/in-economic-deluge-a-world-thats-unable-to-bail-together.html

If you would, take a step back from your belief in a god, and realize how hard humanity constantly debates, argues, plots and plans the best strategies for going forward – from 2 men on a beach in North Carolina ironing out the problems with their flying contraption, to the current financial globalization birth pains we are all going through as the article above shows, to the science behind the new smart bomb that attacks breast cancer .

I know a favorite saying among theists is, “ the lord helps those that help themselves,” (sigh – what a cop out) but -- what is happening, what has always happened, and what will continue to happen, is, humanity will struggle ahead as it always has, and find a way.  We’ve been lucky enough so far - cooler heads have prevailed. 

If you’ve suspended your belief in a god as I’ve suggested, and realized that what is going on here on the little planet in the Milky Way galaxy, is really much more interesting than if an omnipotent god that could snap fingers had done it all.  Understand, as a theist for many, many years, I thought as you do, but just this once, stand in other shoes (if god exists, he’s big enough to handle your few minutes of doubt) and view things from an angle that makes our decisions infinitely more important.

     If I do as you ask and "step away from God and suspend my belief for a moment" then any decision I make would be absolutely futile.  What impact would my puny decision have on even 10 years from now, let alone 1,000,000 years in the future?  Without God, what does any 70 or 80 year finite person (I almost said creature) care about the future at all?  Live fast, die young, and leave a good looking corpse (in this word you pronounce the "p" like President Obama did with the word corpsman.  Just a dig at the "smartest man in the room" Obama mystique.)
     You believe that man is very intelligent, and I believe that he is an intellectual dwarf.  You think God is small or non-existent and I think He is the Omnipotent Creator of all that is.  The world view of each drives the thinking and only one of us is correct. 
     As a humanist, if you are such, the absolute summit of evolutionary attainment is man.  All of the wishful-thinking sci-fi movies and books lead you to envision a near future of Man Glorious in his galactic quest for other life on other planets in other solar systems.  He is the conqueror and adventure charactor that you vicariously see yourself impersonating.  There is a reason that it is called science fiction.
     Most humanists don't think we have a good dozen years on this planet before we completely wreck the place with pollution and population.  You don't have thousands or millions of years to work out the intraplanetary travellog.  This may suprize you but I don't think there are thousands of years left for this rock in space, either.  The answers that we both put our trust in are opposed to each other. 
     This thread was about BHO and his chances of re-election, as I recall. To say this is a rabbit trail is quite an understatement, I guess.  To return to that subject, I hope the current administration falls flat and losses this fall.  It may suprize you, but it is not because he is black.  He is less black than many a mixed parentage person is.  He was raised by white folks in affluent places and went to some of the best schools money or influence could buy.
      Bobbie Jindal is not white and I like him.  Col. West is black and I would support him.  Niccki Halley is a "person of color" as well.  Marco Rubio is Cuban.  There you go, I support people of backgrounds that take us all over the globe. 
     My lack of support for the current administration is on ideological grounds alone.  There may be some that are motivated by race who are in my party, but they are the minority by a long shot.  We have principles that we stand on and believe.  Atheism can change on a dime.  Humanism is personality driven.  If you like that guy or this woman, then you can back their program.  You'll trust them as dictator. 
     With all of the stimulus bill and the cry for More Stimulus, it is plain that this President and his supporters are Keynesian economic supporters as well.  Fiat currence is a tool for that ideology to "jump start" the economy.  Monitizing more debt so that the new money will promote spending and consumerism seldom has the desired effect, and you are still left with the debt to pay off.  That sort of plan has a short term ability to fix problems in a slump, but is a country crippling monster that is hard to kill once no one will buy and hold the debt.
     FDR needed a world war to extract him from the depression, it was not the goofy spending programs he instituted.     
           


Offline DKEN

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2012, 02:19:59 PM »
     In the article you asked me to review, it seems that the global financial issues are insurmountable.  We are heading to global financial meltdown.  This is just a great place to mention my complete lack of trust in the United Nations, the ugly step child of Alger Hiss' and his boss's League of Nations failure.
     If we put our trust in socialist endeavors such as this, it is not a shock to see ourselves collapsing with the other global collectivists.  While we are tied at the hip with them on this rock, to partake of their monetary suicide as we have done in past decades, only spurs on the people in this country that still believe in conservative values on money to reject, whole-heartedly, this collective lemming mentality.  We wish to follow the Austrian Economic mode.
     The answers are simple, not easy.  On the humanist side the way out is complex and very deep.  Much nuance and such.  Yet, even some one without benefit of formal education can balance a check book.  Spending less than you bring in is elementary.   This is something you don't want to hear, but it is the truth.  Of course, I don't think that our country's leaders will go that simple, sure-fix route.  That's why many believe in keeping and hoarding the three precious metals. 
 

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2012, 02:32:56 PM »
DKEN, I too worry about things like the stimulus bills. However, the only thing the republicans can do is put together attacks on the president while demanding even more tax cuts for the wealthy. Neither side is working on a solution. Both are trying to destroy the other. Apparently the word "compromise" has been dissected from brain cells of politicians in both parties, and for that reason there is little hope.

But everyone remembers what "obstruct" means. On both sides of the aisle.

There is currently nothing to like about politics, and little reason to have hope if partisan bickering is going to continue to continue to be the pinnacle of all political thought.

During the Bush administration, it was considered a good month when 11,000 jobs were created. Last month "only" 98,000 new jobs were created and the republicans make it sound like Obama is a pariah. The bulk of our current economic problems were caused by events and legislation that occurred during the Bush adminsitration (why you think Obama has a small one and didn't think at least the same thing about Shrub I'll never know) and the least the republicans could do is accept some of the responsibility and do something about it besides whine.

The day the dollar became a moral value, things started going downhill. Capitalism is fine in small doses. And pretty horrid when the winners get to redefine all the rules in their favor.

The republicans may well win in November, but they are going to do it by making the economy suck so bad between now and then that Obama won't have a chance. And then the second Mittens gets in, they will start doing what they could be doing right now and things will start looking a little better. Until only republican policies start being implemented, then we'll be going back downhill fast. But that's not a problem.  All the republicans have to do is blame it on Obama, even though blaming the current problem on Bush is considered terribly impolite.

And by the way, the fact that you can't figure out how to enjoy your short 80 or so years of life doesn't mean you get to make it miserable for those of us that are not hampered by such "the sky is falling" philosophies. I enjoy being here, I realize that my presence will be short-lived and I'm fine with that. I'm at least 3/4s of the way through my life and I'm not the least bit concerned about my demise. So even though you disagree with such things, please understand that not everything that you fret about is universally valued the same way.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline shnozzola

Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #45 on: June 03, 2012, 05:29:00 PM »
Thanks for your answers, DKEN. 
Without God, what does any 70 or 80 year finite person (I almost said creature) care about the future at all?           
That’s probably the area where atheists are most misunderstood.  We worry about our children and children’s children as much as you do.  As a Christian, aren’t you the one that doesn’t need to worry about the future?  Funny, the atheist/theist mismatch of accusations on the importance of the future.
Quote
You think God is small or non-existent and I think He is the Omnipotent Creator of all that is.  The world view of each drives the thinking and only one of us is correct.
We may both be wrong – god may be less than you think and more than I think – I do not know.
Quote
As a humanist, if you are such, the absolute summit of evolutionary attainment is man.
Again, that seems like more of a Christian notion.  Humanity has just evolved on this planet and means nothing in a universe that I believe is teeming with life.  I like to hope we could think beyond ourselves and our preoccupation with money and security and one-uppedness that drives everything, and reach for the stars, but you are probably correct, humanity is doomed to concentrate on holding each other by the throat while strangely expecting that god is protecting everything – hmmmm?  My view is that of a pacifist, which is probably another mark against me (besides atheism) in your eyes.
Quote
This is just a great place to mention my complete lack of trust in the United Nations
Right out of Rush’s playbook.  How small minded an America is that thinks we can take whatever we want and the rest of the nations do not matter.  Again- doomed to hold each other by the throat.  I put it to you that the republican world view and Christian view are 180 degrees apart – how would a DKEN presidency handle foreign policy?
Quote
Yet, even some one without benefit of formal education can balance a check book.  Spending less than you bring in is elementary.
In my original post further up, I called for 1% spending cuts in the beginning, and maybe more, ALONG with a raise in taxes.  Elementary, you are correct -my wife and I don’t get a new security system for our home that we must put on credit (Bush’s Wars), and then one of us stop working to reduce our income – asinine, IMO.

Good debate though, DKEN.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 05:37:10 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2405
  • Darwins +130/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #46 on: June 03, 2012, 06:38:00 PM »
     If I do as you ask and "step away from God and suspend my belief for a moment" then any decision I make would be absolutely futile.  What impact would my puny decision have on even 10 years from now, let alone 1,000,000 years in the future?  Without God, what does any 70 or 80 year finite person (I almost said creature) care about the future at all?

Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic and directed the extermination of 6 million Jews. I would hardly call the decision of one man to be puny or irrelevant. Albert Einstein was raised a Jew and his choices lead to his general theory of relativity. Both men have had a major impact on our modern worldwide society.

Perhaps you, as a man, wish to diminish your own importance or impact. Mankind will look upon your choices differently.


     You believe that man is very intelligent, and I believe that he is an intellectual dwarf.  You think God is small or non-existent and I think He is the Omnipotent Creator of all that is.  The world view of each drives the thinking and only one of us is correct. 

Since god left no instructions for things like biology, chemistry and physics, I would say that man has done a pretty good job of filling in the blanks left in the instruction manual, to such end that you and I would not be able to communicate without.


     As a humanist, if you are such, the absolute summit of evolutionary attainment is man.  All of the wishful-thinking sci-fi movies and books lead you to envision a near future of Man Glorious in his galactic quest for other life on other planets in other solar systems.  He is the conqueror and adventure charactor that you vicariously see yourself impersonating.  There is a reason that it is called science fiction.

Um, in what world do you live? Is it the same world I inhabit? There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the bible that lead to man making a trip to the moon (and back), yet you wish to diminish -- nay, you wish to deny -- our accomplishments as simple fantasy. Why do you do that? What is your purpose in denying reality?


     Most humanists don't think we have a good dozen years on this planet before we completely wreck the place with pollution and population. 

Who is this we? Who says it is only a dozen years? I could really go to task on this issue of you thinking that some humanist (your word, not mine) thinks that (apparently, according to you) all human life will end in 12 years.

Need I remind you of the thousands of people who have repeatedly thought that the apocalypse should have already occurred, and they keep moving the date forward when they don't get it right. Is that observation, or your remarks, really the basis for intelligent discussion?



This may suprize you but I don't think there are thousands of years left for this rock in space, either.

I believe the estimate is about 2 billion years before the sun begins the nova process.


John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #47 on: June 04, 2012, 07:08:35 AM »
Hi DKEN

You are new here, so please note that my green text indicates I am acting as a moderator, not as a participant. 

Your post here seems to be intentionally offensive.  Please make your point without being insulting.  It will make your stay here longer and more pleasant for everyone.

Thanks.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline DKEN

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #48 on: June 04, 2012, 08:21:22 AM »
Thanks for your answers, DKEN. 
Without God, what does any 70 or 80 year finite person (I almost said creature) care about the future at all?           
That’s probably the area where atheists are most misunderstood.  We worry about our children and children’s children as much as you do.  As a Christian, aren’t you the one that doesn’t need to worry about the future?  Funny, the atheist/theist mismatch of accusations on the importance of the future.
Quote
You think God is small or non-existent and I think He is the Omnipotent Creator of all that is.  The world view of each drives the thinking and only one of us is correct.
We may both be wrong – god may be less than you think and more than I think – I do not know.
Quote
As a humanist, if you are such, the absolute summit of evolutionary attainment is man.
Again, that seems like more of a Christian notion.  Humanity has just evolved on this planet and means nothing in a universe that I believe is teeming with life.  I like to hope we could think beyond ourselves and our preoccupation with money and security and one-uppedness that drives everything, and reach for the stars, but you are probably correct, humanity is doomed to concentrate on holding each other by the throat while strangely expecting that god is protecting everything – hmmmm?  My view is that of a pacifist, which is probably another mark against me (besides atheism) in your eyes.
Quote
This is just a great place to mention my complete lack of trust in the United Nations
Right out of Rush’s playbook.  How small minded an America is that thinks we can take whatever we want and the rest of the nations do not matter.  Again- doomed to hold each other by the throat.  I put it to you that the republican world view and Christian view are 180 degrees apart – how would a DKEN presidency handle foreign policy?
Quote
Yet, even some one without benefit of formal education can balance a check book.  Spending less than you bring in is elementary.
In my original post further up, I called for 1% spending cuts in the beginning, and maybe more, ALONG with a raise in taxes.  Elementary, you are correct -my wife and I don’t get a new security system for our home that we must put on credit (Bush’s Wars), and then one of us stop working to reduce our income – asinine, IMO.

Good debate though, DKEN.
     An excellent question.  How would a DKEN presidency handle foreign policy?  I would reward and protect our allies (proven democratically controlled governments) and have a hands off policy towards our enemies and those neutral to us that are communists or dictatorships.  The caveat being that if they (our enemies) even so much as touch us or our allies, they will become the 51st state of the USA.  And yes, that would be by force and conquering. 
     It would be to spread the free market (not capitalism which is a Karl Marx term) as far as it could reach with free trade happening with all of our allies and ourselves and letting the Marxist regimes to fend for themselves and fight amongst themselves.  Only when touching free countries in a belligerent manner would they be in for a fight.  I would stay far clear of any and all financial dealings with them as well.
     Sorry, I only had time to read and fly today.  I'm off.

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #49 on: June 04, 2012, 10:21:56 AM »
     When the government says that you were going to have to give over half of all you are acquiring to to the government so that they can keep a lot, mis-spend it, then give some to other bureaucrats, who keep a bunch, and then give what's left  to the poverty pimps, who keep their cut, and finally give a pittance to some poor schlep who did not have the drive or ambition to go out and get it for themselves in a country where people from other countries, who can not even speak the language, become well off in 5 to 10 years, would that not be a crime?  Yes, it is called theft.

I guess when Bush Jr was President it wasn't called theft? I'm sure Mitt will also make sure it is not theft, cause you know, only when a Democrat is President can it be called theft. 
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #50 on: June 04, 2012, 06:51:30 PM »
Quote
The USA is unique in all of man's history, which is less than 4500 years that you can prove.  Real freedom to pursue happiness (complete personal fulfillment) is possible to pursue here, and it starts with securing your own personal property.


Every country is unique in human history in some way.

In what way are americans exclusively able to pursue complete personal fulfillment? What is the definition of complete personal fulfillment?

Bump.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #51 on: June 04, 2012, 06:56:59 PM »
Quote
The USA is unique in all of man's history, which is less than 4500 years that you can prove.  Real freedom to pursue happiness (complete personal fulfillment) is possible to pursue here, and it starts with securing your own personal property.

..sounds to me like some lame excuse from a rich man why there is so much misery and poverty in the US... ...  oh, wait, didn't I hear Romney state the same things, and the tea-partiers?  That it is the fault of every individual that they are not independently rich with our limited monetary value because they are failures?????? :police:
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline DKEN

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #52 on: June 04, 2012, 08:53:08 PM »
     In reply to your post, stuffin, I have no objection to paying taxes.  Revenue is required for any country to continue, I'm sure you will agree.  It is what the money is paying for, firstly, where I might object.  You would probably find things that your government pays for that you would not agree with as well.  Getting agreement on where to spend and how much is where the rub is. 
     Again, I would go back to what the Constitution limits the FEDERAL government to, the welfare clause notwithstanding.  A standing army to protect our borders from attack of any kind (our government is failing in this regard in the area of ILLEGAL immigration.  Most of us or our families were and are immigrants.  It's the illegal part that our Federal government is ignoring, and playing politics with.  This is the part that hurts), keeping the money sound and uniform throughout the collective states (with the Federal government spending a trillion dollars more, every year, than it takes in, I would say that they are failing here, too), and moving the mail, which Federal system is almost bankrupt.
   While I think George "W" was a good war time President (no attacks after 9/11 for the remaining 6 or 7 years), he wrecked the Republican brand of fiscal conservatism.  He was not the only one, either.  So there are plenty of Republicans that I have no affection for.  I think the Federal Reserve Banking system is a bunch of real Thurston Howell III's using us and our money to further their ends.  I don't think the answer is more regulations, but recognizing that there is no one and no thing too big to fail.  The short time it takes for every one to sort themselves out after a large collapse of a company or country is far better than letting the entity sap strength from every other corner.  These are only my opinions, but I believe that history bears them out. 
     As I see our country becoming overly burdened with debt and a populous under educated in history and finance, we may find out, soon, if America is too big to fail.  It won't be.  The dogs are at the door and most willing to tear, shred, and feast off the carcass.  Wow, that's too morbid for me to concentrate on for long.  When that happens, the "rich" will be long gone.  Only the Kulaks in society will be left.  They won't have enough cash to split.
     JeremyO, do you not have personal goals and benchmarks for yourself that you would call "success" that others may not want for themselves?  So would I, and they may not be Romney's, and they may not have anything to do with money.  This "pursuit of happiness" thing had me baffled for a long time until I saw it as the opportunity to risk reaching as high as my risk tolerance would allow.  To seek fulfillment in my life and the lives of those I care for.  To enrich my life with what I thought were riches, not some other person's desires.  Money is not evil, but the love....of money is.  Now, where have I heard that saying before? 
     Envy is a trait that is quite bitter.  To want what others have or to wish they would lose what they have to satisfy some desire to see lives leveled off, to have an equality of result outlook, could cause a life to be focused on the wrong thing, and will be guaranteed to not produce happiness.   I'm sure we would agree on this point.  BTW, that would be coveting, and it is not an appealing trait. 

Offline DKEN

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #53 on: June 04, 2012, 09:19:29 PM »
Quote
The USA is unique in all of man's history, which is less than 4500 years that you can prove.  Real freedom to pursue happiness (complete personal fulfillment) is possible to pursue here, and it starts with securing your own personal property.


Every country is unique in human history in some way.

In what way are americans exclusively able to pursue complete personal fulfillment? What is the definition of complete personal fulfillment?

Bump.
     Hi Ambassador Pony.  There have not, in my view, been many systems of government in history, that have allowed the "little guy" to find his own happiness in what ever pursuit would come to his mind.  A person may  have no royal blood, but being diligent, saving his money, and amassing some wealth, he might find some measure of contentment in his life.  Through recorded history, not many of the peasant class could do that.  They could own nothing for themselves.  The rich land owners, or the Supreme Leader (dictator oligarch), by what ever name they went under, lorded it over the serfs.  If you were not of the privileged class, your life could be changed in a drastic manner with out any input from you.
    In America an alien could jump through the proper hoops and over the hurdles the Immigration office puts in his way, begin to work, live way below his means, save as much as possible, and become financially well off after some years.  He came here to do that because he could not do it where he came from.  If you ask these kind of immigrants about America, they would drop and kiss the ground, before they gush about how great it is here.   
     Our history is jam packed with those type of stories.  Where else in the world are people risking their very lives to get to?  Not from here to Cuba or North Korea.  These places see their citizens desperate to get out of these countries and the totalitarian strongman dictators running the show.  At the same time, the highly educated in our country would like to see that kind of system instituted here to replace the evils and uncertainty of the free market, not realizing that the intellectuals are the first to be eliminated when those regimes set up shop.
     While I concede that every country is unique in some way, some kinds of unique are more inviting than others.  It is like the term hope and change.  The word hope is nebulous until you define what that hope is.  Change can be a bullet behind the ear at high velocity.  I don't want that kind of change. 

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #54 on: June 04, 2012, 09:46:03 PM »

     Hi Ambassador Pony.  There have not, in my view, been many systems of government in history, that have allowed the "little guy" to find his own happiness in what ever pursuit would come to his mind.  A person may  have no royal blood, but being diligent, saving his money, and amassing some wealth, he might find some measure of contentment in his life.  Through recorded history, not many of the peasant class could do that.  They could own nothing for themselves.  The rich land owners, or the Supreme Leader (dictator oligarch), by what ever name they went under, lorded it over the serfs.  If you were not of the privileged class, your life could be changed in a drastic manner with out any input from you.
    In America an alien could jump through the proper hoops and over the hurdles the Immigration office puts in his way, begin to work, live way below his means, save as much as possible, and become financially well off after some years.  He came here to do that because he could not do it where he came from.  If you ask these kind of immigrants about America, they would drop and kiss the ground, before they gush about how great it is here.   
     Our history is jam packed with those type of stories.  Where else in the world are people risking their very lives to get to?  Not from here to Cuba or North Korea.  These places see their citizens desperate to get out of these countries and the totalitarian strongman dictators running the show.  At the same time, the highly educated in our country would like to see that kind of system instituted here to replace the evils and uncertainty of the free market, not realizing that the intellectuals are the first to be eliminated when those regimes set up shop.
     While I concede that every country is unique in some way, some kinds of unique are more inviting than others.  It is like the term hope and change.  The word hope is nebulous until you define what that hope is.  Change can be a bullet behind the ear at high velocity.  I don't want that kind of change.

Talk about rose tinted specs. Americans have no more practical freedom than anyone living in any western democracy (personally I would argue that you actually have less. At least I won't die because I couldn't afford healthcare) and there are plenty of people risking their lives to get into Europe. People from Africa risk theirs daily trying to cross the Mediterranean sea in makeshift rafts. People from impoverished 3rd world countries will always risk everything to get into the nearest 1st world country wherever that might be. It's a global problem not just America's.

Don't they teach history in America? Serfs went out centuries ago and all America has done is swap aristocracy for plutocracy. For the poor the result is still the same. They're still poor.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2012, 09:47:59 PM by Frank »
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #55 on: June 04, 2012, 10:02:36 PM »
     JeremyO, do you not have personal goals and benchmarks for yourself that you would call "success" that others may not want for themselves?  So would I, and they may not be Romney's, and they may not have anything to do with money.  This "pursuit of happiness" thing had me baffled for a long time until I saw it as the opportunity to risk reaching as high as my risk tolerance would allow.  To seek fulfillment in my life and the lives of those I care for.  To enrich my life with what I thought were riches, not some other person's desires.  Money is not evil, but the love....of money is.  Now, where have I heard that saying before? 
i have aspirations to push things to a new level.  I want to see a tomorrow that is more along the lines of what I expected out of people when I came into this life, rather than dying in vanity.  Money is only a necessary piece of paper that we apply meaning to.  There are ways that an economic system could thrive without the use of money.  However, that system will never exist in our lifetimes.  It requires global change in a shift away from monetary value and purpose...

As for myself - I want to accomplish some things.  That simple.  My life has become purposed with accomplishing the well-being of all people.  As people are irresponsible with the handling of money (one family can't be too rich without other families being very poor), I favor a system in which equality is highly promoted.  I want to see such a system implemented before we hit cyclical and subsequent disasters that I see coming our way - in my own lifetime.  I don't want to live with this crap.  I want to build things, better things.  That is my goal. 

Yes, I could spend all my time on my own aspirations - building things that would serve to start businesses, create wealth for me, start a family, all that good crap.  But I feel my time here is better served trying to create a better situation for all of us and not just myself.  In that, we are vastly different from eachother.

Thanks for playing...
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1337
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #56 on: June 05, 2012, 03:31:40 AM »
Okay so...

Hi Ambassador Pony.  There have not, in my view, been many systems of government in history, that have allowed the "little guy" to find his own happiness in what ever pursuit would come to his mind.  A person may  have no royal blood, but being diligent, saving his money, and amassing some wealth, he might find some measure of contentment in his life.  Through recorded history, not many of the peasant class could do that.  They could own nothing for themselves.  The rich land owners, or the Supreme Leader (dictator oligarch), by what ever name they went under, lorded it over the serfs.  If you were not of the privileged class, your life could be changed in a drastic manner with out any input from you.

Not really.  I'll leave it to someone else to discuss the history of serfdom in Europe.

But as far as things went in the Americas, you need to keep in mind a few things, the first being that when this country was founded, we had this institution called slavery.  These little guys and gals didn't get to find their own happiness or whatever.  They got to give their labor to their respective masters.  Their lives were not their own.  And once this institution was formally ended, it was soon followed up with over a century of all manner of violent oppression against them.  With this in mind, I found this bit from you to be kind of funny:

Where else in the world are people risking their very lives to get to?  Not from here to Cuba or North Korea.

For a good part of this country's history, there were folks risking their lives to get out of this country.  The last stop on the underground railroad for a lot of folks was, after all, Canada.

The other thing you should keep in mind is that this up from your bootstraps immigrant story has always been a fiction in a lot of ways:

In America an alien could jump through the proper hoops and over the hurdles the Immigration office puts in his way, begin to work, live way below his means, save as much as possible, and become financially well off after some years.  He came here to do that because he could not do it where he came from.  If you ask these kind of immigrants about America, they would drop and kiss the ground, before they gush about how great it is here.

It's possible that you can come roaring onto our shores and come up from nothing and become an enormous success or at least solidly middle class.  It's also possible that you might find yourself in an economically depressed community with few opportunities.  You may find that the schools you send your children to are inadequate or even dangerous.  You might find that your neighborhood itself can be dangerous, and that law enforcement can be hostile towards you and your new community.  You might even be shot 41 times because the police thought your wallet was a gun.  And your family could be comforted by the fact that your mayor didn't feel the need to attend your funeral because the police had done nothing wrong.

I mean it's great to think everyone that gets off the boat is going to live out a Horatio Alger story or whatever but it's not as if things were just peachy keen for everyone who came here.  I mean, if we harken back to the years in which a lot of people's families actually came to this country, it's not as if things were so amazing here.  I mean, if your wife or daughter died in a fire because her employer locked everyone in on the floor of the sweat shop, I don't think you would be kissing the ground thanking your god that you made it here.  If you were a miner being payed in company scrip, I doubt you'd be saying "only in America."  And if you found yourself beaten back by police or hired goons while you were organizing to improve your working conditions, you might be a bit less inclined to talk about the unique greatness of America.

Don't get me wrong, there were definitely success stories here.  And there are indeed people that will absolutely gush about how great this country is.  I know some of them.  And our standard of living has been, more or less, improving as we've gone along.  (Along with a lot of other places.)  But I just can't stand this "America, ain't she grand" narrative that conventiently sweeps under the rug our racial and ethnic problems, our labor problems, our gender inequities, etc.  And I have an especially hard time with this kind of talk when it's used to highlight the unique greatness of a country that's committed terrible atrocities at home and abroad.  I mean, a lot of people that came to this country as refugees, became refugees as a result of our actions.  Nah, son.

Another reason I find this to be a bad way of looking at things is that we're not the only country people go to when they're seeking better opportunities:

People from Africa risk theirs daily trying to cross the Mediterranean sea in makeshift rafts. People from impoverished 3rd world countries will always risk everything to get into the nearest 1st world country wherever that might be. It's a global problem not just America's.

Exactly.  And this is also why I tend to roll my eyes at this "jump through the proper hoops" business.  As much as I'd like people to respect our laws or whatever, I have a hard time coming down on people for jumping the line so to speak.  We have poverty here.  But that's first world poverty.  Third world poverty is another beast entirely.  And as violent as some of our neighborhoods can be, they're not warzones.  I really have a hard time faulting people for doing whatever they can to escape that, legal or illegal.  And it's really easy to talk about how we need to enforce the law and send the illegals packing until you actually deal with undocumented families on a human level.  I've seen children just shut down emotionally when one of their parents were deported.  It's tragic.  I'm not sure what the solution is.  But it can't be that.

Also, on the subject of blackness:

may suprize you, but it is not because he is black.  He is less black than many a mixed parentage person is.  He was raised by white folks in affluent places and went to some of the best schools money or influence could buy.

This type of thinking INFURIATES me.  Obama is no less black than any other black person.  There is no perfect paradigm of blackness.  And nah, being mixed race doesn't really make you less black.  Race is largely a social construct--one that you don't always get to opt out of because one of your parents is white.  And nah, being raised by white people doesn't make you less black.  Being raised in a wealthy area doesn't make you less black.  Going to a good school doesn't make you less black.  Blackness is what black people do.  And some black people live in nice areas and go to good schools.  Some black people even work at the highest levels of government.  Some black people don't.  I'm sure there are some that conform to whatever essentialized version of blackness you have in your mind.

I don't think that you're a racist for writing things like this, but please know that you are tip toeing up to the line.

Finally, on the subject of conservatives of color:

Bobbie Jindal is not white and I like him.  Col. West is black and I would support him.  Niccki Halley is a "person of color" as well.  Marco Rubio is Cuban.  There you go, I support people of backgrounds that take us all over the globe.

Allen West?  Really?  Why?  That dude's a nutjob.

Actually one more little jab:

FDR needed a world war to extract him from the depression, it was not the goofy spending programs he instituted.

Right.  WW2 was a massive stimulus program.  The government ran up huge deficits to carry out a war, and in doing so employed people that would have otherwise been unemployed.

So yeah...


Peace
« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 04:41:33 AM by Timo »
Nah son...

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: New Ad Campaign: "The Defeat Of Barrack Obama"
« Reply #57 on: June 05, 2012, 05:18:46 AM »
Dken, you listed a bunch of stuff you can do in a lot of countries. Canada, for example.

You did not define personal fulfillment that I can read. I saw you re-state it as "some measure of contentment ", what is that? I ask again.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.