America - The Official Thread

[BobK]

Rand Paul on Obama's NSA speech Friday:

“What I think I heard is that if you like your privacy, you can keep it.”

 

[Keef]

I'm going to vote for Rand Paul in 2016.

 

[Omnis]

I'm moving to idaho. These taters don't run.

 

[Liquid]

I'm going to vote for Rand Paul in 2016.

A bit more conservative than his dad for my liking, but I know less about him so I could be wrong on that.

Briefly on the election though, do we know any of the most likely candidates yet? I know I can only compare with Britain and I should keep my pounds sterling and BSE over in the other thread, but we have well defined leaders of our parties. Difficult for us Johnny Foreigners to know who 'leads' the Republican party or who will run. And the Democrats for that matter. I'd assume Biden will seek nomination but he is kind of old. Wouldn't have thought he'd get the nomination anyway.

 

[BobK]

A bit more conservative than his dad for my liking, but I know less about him so I could be wrong on that.

Briefly on the election though, do we know any of the most likely candidates yet? I know I can only compare with Britain and I should keep my pounds sterling and BSE over in the other thread, but we have well defined leaders of our parties. Difficult for us Johnny Foreigners to know who 'leads' the Republican party or who will run. And the Democrats for that matter. I'd assume Biden will seek nomination but he is kind of old. Wouldn't have thought he'd get the nomination anyway.

First of all, the election is still almost three years away and most anything can happen between now and then, and most likely will. Anybody remember how Bush's poll ratings were sky high just a year before he got beat by Clinton? For that matter, who outside of Illinois had heard of this Barack Obama fellow before 2007 or so?

Biden is seen as a buffoon by too many people to be a viable candidate. If he runs the Republicans have a gold mine of available Biden quotes to use against him. The frontrunner from the Democrat side at this time is Hilary Clinton and I don't expect that to change (keeping in mind my first point though).

On the Republican side there is no clear front runner. Gov. Christie of NJ arguably had the inside track but the allegations of engineering traffic jams for political payback are pretty damaging. If there's any truth to that at all I certainly wouldn't want to see the man as President. I'll say, though, if you dragged me kicking and screaming to make a choice between him and Hilary I'd go for Christie.

tl;dr: No, we don't.

 

[Liquid]

@BobK Okay, ta. Just curious to know, that's all.

 

[Sanji Himura]

On the Republican side there is no clear front runner. Gov. Christie of NJ arguably had the inside track but the allegations of engineering traffic jams for political payback are pretty damaging. If there's any truth to that at all I certainly wouldn't want to see the man as President. I'll say, though, if you dragged me kicking and screaming to make a choice between him and Hilary I'd go for Christie.

My father and I (for the record, my father is a conservative Democrat while I call myself a moderate Republican) were discussing Christie the other day (I believe it was Friday), and we basically agreed that the main reason why the media is raising a huge stink over the bridgegate is that Christie is the only establishment candidate that the statists have in countering in what would likely be a strong Tea Party push in 2016. You would have Rand Paul, Ted Cruz (now that he has revoked his Canadian citizenship), Michelle Maulkin, Rick Perry that could make runs, and all of them have Tea Party affiliation in one sense or another. All of the establishment is basically weak with the exception of Christie, who only made himself look stronger with the way that he handled the scandal.

To put the media circus in another perspective, there was a Benghazi bombshell dropped this week. According to Bernie Goldberg (a media analysis who frequently appears on O'Reilly's show), the Sunday talk shows(with possibly the exception of Fox) spent 35 minutes on bridgegate, and were mum on Benghazi. This should tell you that while the media is playing cheerleader for Obama's handling of his scandals, they are getting Christie's out of the way so that he would look strong for the primaries.

 

[DK]

There's a bit of me that doubts whether Hilary will make a run in 2016. Given that she resigned as Secretary of State, and with Benghazi hanging over her, her presidency seems unlikely to me.

 

[Danoff]

Short and informative video:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/5-things-you-didnt-know-about-citizens-united.php

 

[Sanji Himura]

That video is absolutely right. I am, however, shocked that Texas doesn't allow unlimited campaign donations.

 

[Badasp5.0]

There's a bit of me that doubts whether Hilary will make a run in 2016. Given that she resigned as Secretary of State, and with Benghazi hanging over her, her presidency seems unlikely to me.

I know a ton of people with left leaning politics that are hoping that she does run. Its crazy what people overlook just because she is well known and a woman.

 

[Adamgp]

I know a ton of people with left leaning politics that are hoping that she does run. Its crazy what people overlook just because she is well known and a woman.

If she wasn't a democrat her career would be over.

 

[Badasp5.0]

If she wasn't a democrat her career would be over.

Agreed if she was a Republican it would have never started.

 

[DK]

I fail to see the benefit of the Citizens United decision.

 

[FoolKiller]

I fail to see the benefit of the Citizens United decision.

Speech is good and more speech is better. He says it right there at the end.

But to be more detailed; I cannot do enough to get a politician's attention to listen to just me or donate enough to help the guy I like in an election compared to Hollywood folks and other out-of-state busy bodies wanting to affect my life and rights even though they've never been here. But if me, you, and a few thousand other like-minded individuals get together we can pool our money and voices. Suddenly we are no longer a bunch of individual nobodies. Suddenly we can wave enough money around to get political and/or media attention, or we can make our own ads to make our voices heard.

The benefit of Citizens United is simply that it makes voters like ants. One can barely do more than move a stick. A whole colony can move tons of Earth.

 

[DK]

I was sceptical because of the (seemingly) huge increase in corporate funding of election campaigns after the CU case.

Someone's about to prove that above sentence wrong, aren't they.

 

[FoolKiller]

I was sceptical because of the (seemingly) huge increase in corporate funding of election campaigns after the CU case.

Someone's about to prove that above sentence wrong, aren't they.

There are still campaign finance rules. No candidate was, legally, being given checks from corporations. But what did happen was political action committees (PACs) formed to pool money from many places and run their own ads.

At first, more ads sound annoying. And they feel it too. But last election I noticed something; I saw ads supporting lesser known candidates. There are ads for initiatives or industries. And if something is a ballot issue in my smallish town, where we don't have our own TV stations, groups pay the local cable company to run ads on it.

There is increased awareness and information out there.That can only be a good thing.

 

[d3uc3_dropp3r]

This isn't a news article but I feel like I have to share this. https://www.aclu.org/blog/religion-belief/if-you-want-fit-public-school-just-become-christian

The story is about a student who gets ridiculed by the students and staff at a public school because of his religious beliefs. I am sure things like this happen all over the country but it makes me feel more appreciation for my area. Maybe this is more proof to why public schools are unconstitutional lol. I'd be a hypocrite making that statement though because my school was pretty well off. Maybe I am just confused, I don't know what the answer is to problems like this. All I can say is I was grown up in extremely fortunate circumstances. I'm very thankful for that.

 

[Danoff]

Obama says you don't deserve to be free:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybi...ama-to-americans-you-dont-deserve-to-be-free/

 

[Liquid]

Obama says you don't deserve to be free

Not true, and oversensationalist.

However, I concur with what is meant; he wants more government and more control. This is bad.

 

[Danoff]

Not true, and oversensationalist.

I suppose you'd prefer it if I typed "Obama means you don't deserve to be free"?

 

[Liquid]

Depends if including "You Don't Deserve To Be Free" as the summation of the paragraphs is pertinent. If yes, then yeah, he could be said to imply or insinuate.

Otherwise, he's advocating larger government and using his own historical interpretation as precedence. I agree with the content of the article, in that Obama is using historical cherrypicking as justification for larger government and increased federal bureaucracy, however I disagree that there is an explicit mention of not deserving freedom or liberty and feel that the title is oversensationalist and inaccurate.

 

[Danoff]

Depends if including "You Don't Deserve To Be Free" as the summation of the paragraphs is pertinent. If yes, then yeah, he could be said to imply or insinuate.

Otherwise, he's advocating larger government and using his own historical interpretation as precedence. I agree with the content of the article, in that Obama is using historical cherrypicking as justification for larger government and increased federal bureaucracy, however I disagree that there is an explicit mention of not deserving freedom or liberty and feel that the title is oversensationalist and inaccurate.

I see, I don't agree with you. I think it is clear that there is an implicit rejection of human beings deserving freedom. His view is only consistent with the notion that human beings should not be allowed to use their own judgement.

I thought this part was brilliant.

there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The government will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just pile on even more regulations and raise taxes–especially on the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the losers are protected by more social programs and a higher minimum wage, if there is more Quantitative Easing by the Fed, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle up to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle up, well, that’s the price of the social safety net.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our intellectuals’ collectivism and Paul Krugman’s skepticism about freedom. That’s in Harvard’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the Soviet Union. It’s not what led to the incredible booms in India and China. And it didn’t work when Europetried it during over the last decades. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this statist theory.

Boy does the rewrite sound more accurate.

 

[Liquid]

I understand where you're coming from.

However I think there is a strong difference between the following;

- I believe large government helps people
- You are unable to make your own decisions, and we have legislated so that you are no longer entitled to do so

Even though both essentially promote the same ideas. Perhaps Obama was being somewhat insidious or covertly sinister with his statement, but I cannot say for sure that I interpreted it that way. Overall however, it cannot be denied that Obama's 'change' campaign has worked; an increase in Federal activity and the swelling of Federal interference. That is a change, but ultimately not a good one.

 

[Danoff]

I understand where you're coming from.

However I think there is a strong difference between the following;

- I believe large government helps people
- You are unable to make your own decisions, and we have legislated so that you are no longer entitled to do so

Even though both essentially promote the same ideas. Perhaps Obama was being somewhat insidious or covertly sinister with his statement, but I cannot say for sure that I interpreted it that way. Overall however, it cannot be denied that Obama's 'change' campaign has worked; an increase in Federal activity and the swelling of Federal interference. That is a change, but ultimately not a good one.

More directly what he said was not that large government helps people, but that freedom doesn't help people. Read his statement and tell me that's not the gist of it. Another way of saying that freedom doesn't work is saying that your judgement and decisions aren't good.

 

[Liquid]

From what I gather he addresses market and economic freedom more than personal civil liberties. This is where I see it as not being a denial of freedom, individual freedom, and more of a critique that large government stimulates the economy. I understand that market freedom and personal freedom are linked but I just cannot see a direct correlation in this particular context. We may simply have to agree on differing interpretations.

I would certainly challenge Obama's notion that market freedom did not work in the previous decade; the whole world was on a crest of a wave for most of the 2000s, regardless whether governments where centre or right. Furthermore, while I do like to see economic prosperity, I am concerned that growth in India and China comes with the exploitation of its people. Not all of them, but still a fair amount. This is down to politics and not economics though, in my opinion.

India receives hundreds of millions of pounds of aid from the United Kingdom but chooses to pursue things such as government funded space programmes. This annoys me, unless I am missing something glaringly obvious.

Off topic for this thread, but yes, that's my opinion. Lastly I will say Danoff, that it is refreshing to have a debate on something where participants differ somewhat and as a response have "I disagree with this" and a quality construction to back it up.

Debate of that nature is sadly few and far between in the OCE.

 

[FoolKiller]

Define hypocrite:

Yet even as our faith sustains us, it’s also clear that around the world freedom of religion is under threat. And that is what I want to reflect on this morning. We see governments engaging in discrimination and violence against the faithful. We sometimes see religion twisted in an attempt to justify hatred and persecution against other people just because of who they are, or how they pray or who they love. Old tensions are stoked, fueling conflicts along religious lines, as we’ve seen in the Central African Republic recently, even though to harm anyone in the name of faith is to diminish our own relationship with God. Extremists succumb to an ignorant nihilism that shows they don’t understand the faiths they claim to profess -- for the killing of the innocent is never fulfilling God’s will; in fact, it’s the ultimate betrayal of God’s will.

Unless you are the president of the US, of course.

 

[Danoff]

From what I gather he addresses market and economic freedom more than personal civil liberties. This is where I see it as not being a denial of freedom, individual freedom, and more of a critique that large government stimulates the economy.

Economic freedom and personal civil liberties are the same thing to me. I don't see a distinction between being allowed to smoke pot or marry a gay person, and being allowed to buy cigarettes at the same tax rate as you buy a loaf of bread. One is an individual being arbitrarily singled out and punished by the government based on lifestyle and choices, and the other is an individual being arbitrarily singled out and punished by the government based on lifestyle and choices. One would be defined as economic freedom whereas the other would be personal civil liberties. I could also go into the financial aspect of gays being allowed to marry, but I think it'll be obvious to most people why I don't draw a line between one freedom and the next.

 

[BobK]

I think it'll be obvious to most people why I don't draw a line between one freedom and the next.

...because you're a sniveling liberal?

Sorry, just can't stop giggling over that silly comment from the other day.

 

[Sanji Himura]

@Danoff is pretty much correct. Plato once said that, "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." The state of the union has pretty much opened many eyes to the need to reign in our public officials. That is why McConnell is up in a tough primary fight in Kentucky. And even if he does survive the primary, that seat will turn blue.