Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[Tornado]

Nothing more then a bunch of half-cocked blog posts from wack-o's, same goes if you Google "John McCain badmouthing the Constitution".

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[V1P3R]

The Feds disrupts Neo-Nazi Plot to assassinate Obama

💡 Stay in skool kids.

 

[Danoff]

My history professor was talking about hearing Obama badmouth the constitution. Anyone hear anything about that?

You mean like... every time he advocates a policy? Because pretty much his entire platform spits on the constitution.

I'm still surprised by some of the reactions to the political compass test, there is nothing biased about the test itself. All the statements are biased though, you either agree or disagree with them, that's the point. Seriously read the FAQ it explains it quite well.

You can lead someone to the answer with how you phrase the question/statement. For example:

Children should be brainwashed by private organizations.
Strongly Agree? Somewhat Agree? Somewhat Disagree? Strongly Disagree?

Children should be taught by impartial high quality public schools.
Strongly Agree? Somewhat Agree? Somewhat Disagree? Strongly Disagree?

Evil corporations should have to pay for destroying the planet.
Strongly Agree? Somewhat Agree? Somewhat Disagree? Strongly Disagree?

 

[Joey D]

Seriously, read this, it explains it all.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq

I see nothing biased with the test, you either agree with the statements or you don't and based on how you answer is how you are placed on the compass. Yes, all the statements are biased, but there are people out there that believe strongly in them one way or another.

I understand questioning just fine, we are drilled on how to do it in my Anthropological Methods class. Considering I had to read a couple books on the subject I feel as if I know a little bit about questions, surveys, and the like. I'm not an expert nor do I claim to be though.

 

[Tornado]

You mean like... every time he advocates a policy? Because pretty much his entire platform spits on the constitution.

No, I'm not talking how Obama policies metaphorically make the founding fathers turn over. I mean my professor mentioned that he thought he heard Obama actually coming out and saying something along the lines of "The Constitution is an out of date document that needs to be put away." He wasn't sure about the context, so he couldn't comment on it.
I'm guessing this is the news piece he saw, and its honestly not anything I didn't already know in regards to Obama's economic foolishness. It does kind of scare me that he is willing to go completely into "Roosevelt Mode" to try and force his economic goals, though.

 

[YSSMAN]

The Nolan chart on their site gave me a similar answer as the other ones did, although like the other ones there is still no candidate that fits.

Odd, the Nolan chart essentially gave me an opposite answer. On most of these tests I usually score as a more "progressive" (read liberal) Libertarian, the Nolan one scored me as a "centrist" leaning more towards the Libertarian/Conservative line.

====

RE: Obama and "Roosevelt Mode"

That, my friend, depends on if the GOP is smart enough to start throwing cash at the Senate races. Having a solid Democrat House, Senate and White House is probably far right Republican's worst nightmare, and at least in my opinion, I'd prefer to keep an otherwise "balanced" system of the Legislative and Executive branches.

 

[Solid Fro]

Solid Fro: one of your videos have been removed.

Which one? They all work for me.

My history professor was talking about hearing Obama badmouth the constitution. Anyone hear anything about that?

Absolutely. In the World Net Daily link you posted, you can listen to part of that radio interview, I'll post it here:



LGF has a post about the other parts of the radio interview here and Hot Air has it too. Half cocked blog posts by wackos? Far from it. Just words from Obama's mouth.

On Hannity & Colmes:



Bill O'Reilly had Barbara West on tonight:



Sean Hannity has Palin, Piper, and Liz!!!

 

[Joey D]

All in context, and whether you care to admit it or not Little Green Football's is a biased blog which will spin this, Fox News is even worse (although I'm not disagreeing CNN isn't biased as well).

Honestly I see nothing wrong with questioning the Constitution, it's fundamentally good but it's not meant to stay the same way forever. Without questioning it nothing would ever change and I don't really want to live in a place that doesn't change over time.

 

[Tornado]

Honestly I see nothing wrong with questioning the Constitution, it's fundamentally good but it's not meant to stay the same way forever. Without questioning it nothing would ever change and I don't really want to live in a place that doesn't change over time.

Except he's questioning it for the sake of forcing redistribution of wealth as government policy.

 

[Joey D]

Do you really think he believes that? Like all politicians it's probably just a load of bull to appease some group. You know as well as I do that being a politician is trying to step on the least amount of toes as possible.

 

[Tornado]

Do you really think he believes that? Like all politicians it's probably just a load of bull to appease some group. You know as well as I do that being a politician is trying to step on the least amount of toes as possible.

He stands to piss off a lot more people advocating a base feature of Socialism than he would otherwise. Furthermore, that interview was conducted long before his presidential race, when he didn't have to worry about stepping on toes. So yes, I do think he believes that.

 

[Omnis]

Do you really think he believes that? Like all politicians it's probably just a load of bull to appease some group. You know as well as I do that being a politician is trying to step on the least amount of toes as possible.

this guy is talking about using the warren court to redistribute WEALTH. Thats worse than just talking about wages or payment. Lew Rockwell's people were all over this before the MM picked it up.

 

[FoolKiller]

Seriously, read this, it explains it all.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq

I see nothing biased with the test, you either agree with the statements or you don't and based on how you answer is how you are placed on the compass. Yes, all the statements are biased, but there are people out there that believe strongly in them one way or another.

I went there and their response to the very question I raised regarding the globalization questions. Here is their response:

This one sometimes ruffles feathers on right wings. What the proposition actually suggests is that humanity should be the priority.

Critics argue that there's no conflict of interest. Transnational corporations naturally and unfailingly serve humanity by serving themselves. In enriching business, the argument goes, globalisation will always subsequently benefit humanity. Prioritising humanity would only limit the ability of the corporations to inevitably do greater good. So advocates of this trickle down approach should simply click 'strongly disagree' We don't see the problem.
The record, however, makes clear that there have often been spectacular conflicts of interest between coporate enrichment and humantity. Halliburton, Enron and the tobacco industry's research cover-ups are perhaps the best known examples. Others are detailed at The 10 Worst Corporations of 2006 and Corpwatch.org .

On the other hand, for the comparatively few who tell us that corporations can never serve humanity, Milton Friedman argues the case for unfettered market forces.

Their explanation is weak, and they basically tell me to vote against benefiting humanity. But they don't stop, they go on to argue the point that it is either or.

Congratulations on listing corporations that have been caught in running unethical business practices due to the greed of a few executive, which actually harms the corporation in the long run. Now, how about businesses that are ethical. If they were saying this out loud I imagine the line referencing Milton Friedman would be mumbled under their breath.

Even their explanation shows that they took a biased opinion and feel there is no reason for a middle ground to be provided, only to reference a man who has won a Nobel prize for saying otherwise.

The fact is that they show a lack of economic knowledge in that one question by saying it can only go one way or the other.

My argument is for a neutral option if it is an agree or disagree survey. Otherwise you do push people to choose something they don't agree with completely. In the globalization question I am forced to choose either humanity or corporations, when I don't see it that way. This isn't Mother Teressa vs baby eating, but they force you to make that choice. That's my issue. Sure, all surveys will have a degree of bias, but this one gives you no way to avoid the bias.

Nothing more then a bunch of half-cocked blog posts from wack-o's, same goes if you Google "John McCain badmouthing the Constitution".

Honestly I see nothing wrong with questioning the Constitution, it's fundamentally good but it's not meant to stay the same way forever. Without questioning it nothing would ever change and I don't really want to live in a place that doesn't change over time.

First it was wack-o's just making accusations, but now it sounds reasonable to actually do that?

The problem is that the only people who have the ability to change The Constitution are the ones that it is designed to control (government). The Constitution is a set of rules for how the US government should work. It limits the ability of government to control the people and grants specific rights that cannot be taken away.

Sure, the founding fathers knew it would need minor adjustments, but they made it a pain to do that, and it was for a reason: They do not want it changing a lot because when government has the ability to define its own limits it will eventually become a tyranny. The natural course of governments is for them to gain control and citizens to lose rights. The Constitution is designed to prevent that from happening and when you make changes that completely remove entire limits of Congress you open up a very big door.

The Constitution guarantees you the right to pursue happiness and have free thought and will, yet the way Obama wants it to change would be to take away from those that not only pursued financial happiness, but found it and then give it to those that have either not pursued or managed to find it yet.

If we can change the Constitution to go from granting an equality in opportunity to an equality of outcome, what prevents us from changing it to limit free speech against these changes?

There are basic principles that this country was founded upon that cannot change, and while they have already been eroded, if we continue on this redistribution of wealth path we will no longer be what this country was intended to be.

No, we should not be making changes so that we can take from some to give to others. We should repeal these changes so that we can return to the principles and ideals our founders intended.

 

[YSSMAN]

Do you really think he believes that? Like all politicians it's probably just a load of bull to appease some group. You know as well as I do that being a politician is trying to step on the least amount of toes as possible.

I think it was a poor choice of words to describe his tax policy, because by any means, if we're using a graduated system of taxation, we're "spreading the wealth around." But, to that extent, I'm uncertain of how else I would describe the position off the top of my head, perhaps only to point out that it would be my belief to have a strong middle class, and to say that you're getting a larger tax cut by comparison to McCain's plan.

People are whining and complaining about how we're going to divebomb into socialism when we've been here since the late '60s, get over it. We throw money into corporations and banks when things get rough, we've got Social Security, Medicare/Medicade, and the big ol' Welfare that everyone loves to hate. By any measurement, our shade of "pink" is barely noticeable by comparison to our friends and allies across the Atlantic, moderate changes in taxation aren't going to throw us into anything close to what they call socialism over there.

Hell, now that I think about it, we can almost have a discussion of what socialism actually is, but I've already seen that get messy on other boards.

 

[Joey D]

There is a difference between making wild assumptions and questioning things. I think just about anything you are hearing this election is blow wildly out of proportion by both sides. I honestly don't know what's true and which is not any more. I'll be glad when this election is over.

 

[FoolKiller]

People are whining and complaining about how we're going to divebomb into socialism when we've been here since the late '60s, get over it.

No.

We throw money into corporations and banks when things get rough, we've got Social Security, Medicare/Medicade, and the big ol' Welfare that everyone loves to hate.

All I see is a list of bad policies.

Look, just because it has been happening does not mean we should do more and be happy about it. And yes, pulling it back will be a painful process for those who have become dependent on these programs, but that dependency is why they are bad.

There have been bad policies in the past that needed to be revoked and caused a strain on many involved when it happened, but we are better for it.

By any measurement, our shade of "pink" is barely noticeable by comparison to our friends and allies across the Atlantic, moderate changes in taxation aren't going to throw us into anything close to what they call socialism over there.

Whether you just get some mud splashed on the cuff of your jeans or you are soaked in it you still have to clean your jeans. Whether it is just a light shade of salmon pink socialism versus maroon red communism it is still bad, it still violates rights, and it still has to go.

Hell, now that I think about it, we can almost have a discussion of what socialism actually is, but I've already seen that get messy on other boards.

Socialism = government interference in the market/economy. Discussion over.

 

[Danoff]

I see nothing biased with the test, you either agree with the statements or you don't and based on how you answer is how you are placed on the compass.

The question is whether or not the wording of the statements influences your choices. And it does in all three tests. What you don't want is a political quiz that tries to steer your toward the answers that it thinks are correct. And that is what is happening.

I understand questioning just fine, we are drilled on how to do it in my Anthropological Methods class. Considering I had to read a couple books on the subject I feel as if I know a little bit about questions, surveys, and the like.

Then you should realize that these questions are leading you to the answer they want you to pick. And you should realize that that is a poor way of sampling someone's opinions.

Honestly I see nothing wrong with questioning the Constitution, it's fundamentally good but it's not meant to stay the same way forever. Without questioning it nothing would ever change and I don't really want to live in a place that doesn't change over time.

The Constitution is not meant to be changed/reinterpreted fundamentally over time. Sure, changes can be made, but it needs to stay true to it's basic principles. Redistribution of wealth violates multiple portions of the constitution and goes against the basic principles that it was designed upon.

The constitution is not something we use out of convenience, it's something we use out of principle. The concepts of limited government, equal protection, and human rights will never be wrong. They are fundamental truths about our existence. That's the purpose of the constitution - to safeguard our fundamental liberties from government intrusion. To compromise that is a very dangerous thing.

 

[Joey D]

The Constitution is not meant to be changed/reinterpreted fundamentally over time. Sure, changes can be made, but it needs to stay true to it's basic principles. Redistribution of wealth violates multiple portions of the constitution and goes against the fundamental concepts it.

The constitution is not something we use out of convenience. It's something we use out of principle. The concepts of limited government, equal protection, and human rights will never be wrong. They are fundamental truths about our existence. That's the purpose of the constitution, to safeguard our fundamental liberties from government intrusion. To compromise that is a very dangerous thing.

I'm not going argue the validity of the tests, it's becoming pointless.

I never said the redistribution of wealth is a good thing nor did I say I supported it. I do support a changing Constitution to fit with the times though, people were different in the 1700's when compared to today. I'll admit, I have a progressive mind set, I think things should be about where we are going. I said the Constitution is a fundamentally good document, but I think as a society we should think about how things will affect us and if it will work in a modern world. That's the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not going argue the validity of the tests, it's becoming pointless.

Do me a favor. Don't duck out of a conversation you started.

I never said the redistribution of wealth is a good thing nor did I say I supported it.

I know. Obama said it. You responded to posts criticizing Obama. I responded to answer why it's important that Obama be criticized.

I do support a changing Constitution to fit with the times though, people were different in the 1700's when compared to today. I'll admit, I have a progressive mind set, I think things should be about where we are going. I said the Constitution is a fundamentally good document, but I think as a society we should think about how things will affect us and if it will work in a modern world. That's the point I'm trying to make.

There's nothing fundamental about the Constitution that's tied to a time period. The truths that I'm talking about are valid in all time periods. They have been since Man first became conscious, and they will be for as long as we exist. They're true for every country on the face of the planet, for every human being of every religion, nationality, and political affiliation.

Yes, non-fundamental portions of the Constitution have needed to be changed in the past. But the core concepts have remained, and will always be true. Obama has challenged one of the core concepts.

 

[Joey D]

Getting a bit personal aren't we? We don't agree, I'm not going to change the way you view the test, you aren't going to change mine. Can we move on?

I still support a Constitution that changes over time to fit the culture because people's views on things change over time. Even the Bill of Rights have quite a bit of questioning that comes up, if it was so easy to accept the ideals in the Constitution there would never be a debate over it.

 

[Danoff]

Getting a bit personal aren't we? We don't agree, I'm not going to change the way you view the test, you aren't going to change mine. Can we move on?

Look, don't take this personally.

It is not considered polite to start a conversation and then throw your hands up and leave once it's convenient. If you want to talk about something, by all means, post a comment or question that invites conversation. If you don't want to talk about it, posting comments online about it in a forum about opinions is a bad way to go about doing that.

I'm asking you to do this so that I don't waste my time responding to something that you don't want to discuss.

I still support a Constitution that changes over time to fit the culture because people's views on things change over time. Even the Bill of Rights have quite a bit of questioning that comes up, if it was so easy to accept the ideals in the Constitution there would never be a debate over it.

As I said. Some aspects of the Constitution can be debated. Some are not up for debate. What Obama is questioning... questioning isn't the right word... what Obama intends to overthrow isn't an aspect of the constitution that can be up for debate. It is a fundamental truth.

 

[nk4e]

Which one? They all work for me.


Its this one :Biden Bans Philly Station

 

[Solid Fro]

Its this one :Biden Bans Philly Station

Say it ain't so Joe!



Absolutly not! Absolutly not! Absolutly not! Woah, Woah, dead wrong. Woah, woah, dead wrong!

O'Reilly has Newt Gingrich:



I swear, the NRA has some of the best political ads this year:

An Outlaw's Worst Nightmare?



Law Enforcement



and my fav:

Just Words

 

[Perfect Balance]

Obama is here right now at the university in my city giving a speech. Or something.

There's a live feed somewhere, but I can't seem to find the link.

EDIT: Found it, but it has commercial breaks and stuff.

http://www.whsv.com/livestreaming

 

[Keef]

My history professor was talking about hearing Obama badmouth the constitution. Anyone hear anything about that?

Absolutely. It's been slathered all over the radio all day long, and it's all over the net and news.

The main deal I've been hearing about is this:

Breaking Free from the Constitution

Mr. Obama’s comments take a turn from discussing the historical record. Unprovoked he laments that the Supreme Court “could not break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” He further describes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties.” This is at odds with the preamble to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Constitutional preamble describes the goal of securing the blessings of liberty for the Founders and posterity. The Bill of Rights outlines positive liberties: free speech, press, religion, jury trials, defense counsel, and more. The Miranda Warnings are grounded in the Constitution as positive rights.

The extension of constitutional limitations on state government power that had previously existed on federal power by the 14th Amendment is a marvel at work daily in the criminal justice system. The Constitution protects all of us from the exercise of the awesome power of the government when it seeks to take away our liberty property and life.

I got it from this article, in a quick search to find out the quotes I heard on the radio.

 

[Solid Fro]

New video from 1995, (Wright) is "the best of what the Black Church has to offer."



Srsly, Barack?

 

[YSSMAN]

Obama is here right now at the university in my city giving a speech. Or something.

How was the turnout down there? I've been absolutely fascinated by his ability to come into states like Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and Colorado... States that should be "safe" for Republicans... And lead out the polls. It nearly makes up for how boring things have been since the McCain campaign gave up on my state a month ago.

 

[Perfect Balance]

How was the turnout down there? I've been absolutely fascinated by his ability to come into states like Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and Colorado... States that should be "safe" for Republicans... And lead out the polls. It nearly makes up for how boring things have been since the McCain campaign gave up on my state a month ago.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have absolutely no idea. I just went straight home after work and drove like grandma because of the all the cops everywhere. Apparently though, he is leading in Virginia by a good margin.


EDIT: I just did some research. The building they were in seated 8,000 people, and there were a few other locations where they were playing it live for the people that didn't get in, so 8000+ people from a population of around 70,000 people.

 

[YSSMAN]

Too bad you didn't get to go, he is quite awesome to see in person. His speech in the rain this afternoon was great, although I have to admit it was odd seeing him in jeans and tennis shoes out there in the rain. Still, with a week to go, he isn't going to cancel events unless he absolutely has to.

===

In Other News...

Whats that Gov. Palin? What do you do up there in Alaska?

And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” And she said, “Our state constitution—it lays it out for me, how I’m to conduct business with resource development here as the state C.E.O. It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.”

Also, Governor Crist (R-FL) just extended voting hours in Florida, which is a wonderful development. This quote makes me feel good on the inside:

''It's not a political decision,'' Crist said moments after signing the order, which declares a state of emergency in Florida. "It's a people decision.''

It keeps my hopes up for an orderly week or so for most polling places.

 

[Keef]

In Other News...

Whats that Gov. Palin? What do you do up there in Alaska?

And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans [who] own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” And she said, “Our state constitution—it lays it out for me, how I’m to conduct business with resource development here as the state C.E.O. It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.”

Sounds to me like capitalism.

There's a difference between taking from the rich and giving to the poor versus everyone growing--or losing--together. My taking advantage of, say, Google's steadily rising stock price is absolutely sharing the wealth. Sharing the growth amongst all the stock holders.

Or you could simply take money from somebody who doesn't actually need it and give it to somebody who's going to keep Budweiser and the local crack dealer in business.

"It's a people decision", eh? I don't think that lady has enough cuddly teddy bears. You can always use more cuddly teddy bears. Spread the love, man. Shiny happy people holding hands. I gotta say, I've rewritten this paragraph three times now, and I still haven't come up with a joke that's funny about that line. Probably because I still haven't figured out what that line actually means. Like I insinuated, that line would only mean something to all the women out there with lots of cuddly teddy bears.