Certainly, the founding fathers were looking to protect their own butts when it came to property and rights... They were, after all, the wealthy minority ruling the poor majority... The reason why Federalist 10 advocated for the prevention of "the tyranny of the majority over the minority."
I see the founding fathers as Han Solo type figures, in that they started out with personal interest (perhaps even greed?) as their motivation and quickly found themselves caught up as leaders in something much bigger and more important.
It doesn't sound as though Obama is militantly anti-capitalist, but more or less, is looking for a way in which we can find a better solution that protects jobs and consumers, and not the businesses themselves.
That is contradictory. If you don't protect businesses then there is no one to give jobs, because contrary to popular belief it is not the government's responsibility to create and maintain jobs. It is easy to see a business protect its bottom line and profit by laying off employees and call them ruthless, but it is easy to see that a company does not have to fail to go under. In this world of M&A a company needs more than just profit, they need substantial profit to keep from being a takeover target. Sure, some people lost their jobs, but it isn't nearly as many as a company that goes under or gets acquired. As contradictory as it sounds, in the long-term layoffs can actually protect jobs, because if you don't lose some now you will lose them all later.
Generally speaking, I don't see Obama's rhetoric as reliance on the government by the people, but that he wants to use tools already given by the government to do the job that its supposed to do...
Sage already pointed out your fallacy here. At least most of the things you list are not what the government is supposed to do, and many problems started when the government decided they should be involved.
Because its slowly becoming obvious that letting the market determine its future, be it with housing, credit cards, or manufacturing jobs... Its not working for the people, its working for business. And the trickle-down (for the lack of a better term) isn't happening.
Um, the housing situation really started because politicians on both sides of the aisle put out a mandate that we need to increase minority and lower class home ownership. So the loan companies responded, because they didn't want their hand forced, by finding what they thought would be a safe system that would protect them if interest rates went up. The thing is that both the lenders (and yes some were being predatory, but not all) and politicians failed to predict that there is no safe system. Low income home ownership is a fallacy. But promising to make it happen works well in elections. What would have been better would have been if politicians had explained that there is no shame in renting until you are financially secure enough to get a proper loan.
(odd that the environment hasn't been discussed lately... Both McCain and Obama do a good job with it)
Good job = wrong?
But that's another thread.
Which are all (and I do mean all) things that the government isnt supposed to do.
Well, I think that roads and bridges, as it pertains to interstate commerce, is part of infrastructure, which I believe falls under the general welfare as described in the Powers of Congress. But I may be interpreting that incorrectly.
Otherwise, I completely agree with that statement.
"It's not the lesser of two evils, it's the two faces
of evil." ~ G. Edward Griffin
That would sum up my thoughts. I was one of 13,439 in Kentucky that voted for Ron Paul.
Even the some of the pundits have their heads up their asses.
Some? Just because they can discuss issues doesn't mean they aren't looking at the inside of their own colon.
I don't think taking him at his word is how that went down. Most of the comments afterward were people saying they were glad to see him say that, but his record doesn't exactly support 2nd Amendment rights and they'll believe it when they see it.
He was basically pandering to a base conservative group that he has been on the outs with for years. The thing is, in the general election would the NRA be better supporting Obama? We know that if Clinton had a miracle happen and got in that she definitely wouldn't be helping them. Most of McCain's speech was directed at slamming the assault weapons ban the Clinton administration supported, in order to draw the clear distinction between himself and the Democrats. He didn't take any questions and he avoided most of the issues mentioned in your link.
I've heard on the news last night about a possibility of Hillary being Obama's vice-president candidate. So, do you guys think this will happen, and would this change your mind about voting for him (in case you were going to)?
This has been going around for a while. It is all rumor and speculation.
