Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[RACECAR]

People that stupid aren't particularly interesting these days.

Its not so much the people that make this interesting, its the case itself that makes this interesting to look at.

 

[FoolKiller]

They both fall into that category for me.

I figured you would have been all over their Ayn Rand inspired lyrics.

I guess even good philosophy can't overcome individual taste.

I keep them in a classic rock mix along with Boston, Creedence, The Who and Zeppelin. And they have their own separate playlist on my PS3.

 

[livemusic]

And you can prove this? Last time I checked, My friends sure didn't have this reason in mind when they voted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

And I knew Foolkiller was talking of Rush, the band. Maybe because I've never heard of Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Solid Fro]

Yes it's such a shame that every who voted for Obama clearly did it because of his skin colour and we know that thankfully no one who voted for McCain would have done it for his skin colour either

I was speaking about the black community specifically. If you know anyone who voted for McCain because he was a wrinkly old white guy, then I would like to meet that person. If you want to meet someone who voted for Obama only because he is black... I got a few family members for you to talk to. With the rantings of Wright and very personal experiences with family and friends, I believe the teachings of Dr. King have flown out the window.

 

[Casio]

I also find it pretty hard to believe that 94% of Black people supported the Black Candidate, purely based on policies.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Speaking of which, Federal prosecutors say the investigation into allegations that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (bluh-GOY'-uh-vich) tried to sell the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama

Good riddance

 

[RACECAR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Hard to tell when the sentence didn't contain the sarcasm tag

 

[Omnis]

Perhaps I was misunderstood.

Rush, the band. The awesome band. Not that blabbering, "I don't have guests on my show so I can maintain my superior intelligence, of an entire research team in the other room, over anyone who disagrees with me," loud mouth.

I am talking Geddy Lee, Neil Pert, and Alex Lifeson.

What has this world come to when those two get confused?

Lol! Mine was a reaction to the gross comment, which I assumed was in reference to Limbaugh.

But surely he should support the right they have to make those choices, wheather one agrees with them or not.

Think about it.

 

[Solid Fro]

I also find it pretty hard to believe that 94% of Black people supported the Black Candidate, purely based on policies.

I would say racism is alive and well in America and it's not from whites.

Good riddance

Are you surprised that there is even more political corruption coming from Illinois? Tony Rezko, Richard Daley, William Ayers, Barack Obama, and now the governor of the state. When will it stop, no one knows?

 

[Sage]

But surely he should support the right they have to make those choices, wheather one agrees with them or not.

Hint: The correct answer is in Danoff’s signature.

 

[Joey D]

Think about it.

I'd rather have you explain your position to me. I'm pretty sure we have free elections in America and no one is forcing anyone else to vote a certain way like in some other countries. You have every single right to vote for the Communist part as you do the Republican party.

Based on what you are saying you think letting the people choose is a bad thing.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd rather have you explain your position to me. I'm pretty sure we have free elections in America and no one is forcing anyone else to vote a certain way like in some other countries. You have every single right to vote for the Communist part as you do the Republican party.

Based on what you are saying you think letting the people choose is a bad thing.

Considering that the Constitution lays out specific things that cannot be violated, even by a vote, the founding fathers themselves recognized that letting the majority have their way, as they see fit, is a bad thing. That thinking leads to things like slavery, genocide, or even just simple disenfranchisement of a very small group.

I think a perfect example of how this does not work is the gay marriage vote they had in California (I'm not accusing Californians of anything, as Kentucky did it a few years back. They are just the most recent example). The majority voted to disenfranchise a certain group of people simply because they don't agree with how that group lives their lives. I will not support that decision, no matter how many people voted for it. Votes like that should not even be allowed to happen, as it is a vote asking a majority to remove the rights of a minority.

The same can be said for any vote for a socialist policy.

 

[Joey D]

Wait, so how can you and the others on these boards who have a similar political stance harp on and on about freedom but not believe in free elections?

 

[FoolKiller]

Wait, so how can you and the others on these boards who have a similar political stance harp on and on about freedom but not believe in free elections?

Freedom that does not apply to everyone is not freedom.

If an election results in the loss of rights for specific individuals then the freedom has been lost.

The Constitution protects the minority, and the smallest minority is the individual. Any vote that disenfranchises even one person is bad. That is a principle of freedom. Taking away the rights of a minority by a majority is nothing more than mob rule.

 

[Duke]

But then you still have to rely on those states to not squander it on the governor's second cousin's husband's over-priced road construction firm.

...who is employing a bunch of ex-autoworkers who have no idea how to pour concrete or run a paver.

 

[Joey D]

Freedom that does not apply to everyone is not freedom.

If an election results in the loss of rights for specific individuals then the freedom has been lost.

The Constitution protects the minority, and the smallest minority is the individual. Any vote that disenfranchises even one person is bad. That is a principle of freedom. Taking away the rights of a minority by a majority is nothing more than mob rule.

Still that makes no sense.

If the minority's rights need to be protected then shouldn't we be protecting the rights of say the Communist party in the US since they are the minority? They should have the right to be active and be on the ballot and people should have the right to vote for them, just as people should have the right to vote for Obama just because he's black or McCain just because he's not.

It's either one way or the other.

 

[Duke]

I also find it pretty hard to believe that 94% of Black people supported the Black Candidate, purely based on policies.

Actually, about 90% of black people have voted Democrat for the last 30-40 years, so that's only a 4% "because he's black" surge.

Still that makes no sense.

If the minority's rights need to be protected then shouldn't we be protecting the rights of say the Communist party in the US since they are the minority? They should have the right to be active and be on the ballot and people should have the right to vote for them, just as people should have the right to vote for Obama just because he's black or McCain just because he's not.

It's either one way or the other.

It makes no sense because you're utterly missing the point.

The Communist Party has every right to form, peaceably assemble, campaign for office, and vote. Who said they do not?

But the Communist Party does NOT have the right to vote away individual rights of other citizens. Just as the public does NOT have the right to vote away marriage rights of other citizens.

 

[FoolKiller]

Still that makes no sense.

If the minority's rights need to be protected then shouldn't we be protecting the rights of say the Communist party in the US since they are the minority? They should have the right to be active and be on the ballot and people should have the right to vote for them,

They have the right to be on the ballot, they have the right to speak their mind, and they have the right to be elected. They do not have the right to implement their policies, as they are unfair.

As such, I do not support their election or those choosing to vote for them.

I think we have drifted off of what started this a bit, which was this comment.

but if you truly like the United States then shouldn't you support their decision to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason?

And the answer is no. I support their right to vote, but not their decision or reasoning. If it is based on race then they voted as a racist. I will not support that.

 

[Joey D]

t makes no sense because you're utterly missing the point.

The Communist Party has every right to form, peaceably assemble, campaign for office, and vote. Who said they do not?

But the Communist Party does NOT have the right to vote away individual rights of other citizens. Just as the public does NOT have the right to vote away marriage rights of other citizens.

My original comment stemmed from this post:

I've been told since I was old enough to understand that you judge people based on their character, not their skin color. Yet, people lined up in droves to vote for the opposite. Many things don't bother me, but this disturbs be quite a bit.

I said that since this was a free nation and had free election you should be allowed to vote for whomever you would like for whatever reason. Read back through what I have wrote over the past couple pages, it all says the same thing.

The communist party remark came from Foolkiller's post:

The same can be said for any vote for a socialist policy.

You should have the right to vote for that party if you agree with it and think they would do the best job in the US.

I think you guys missed my point.

And the answer is no. I support their right to vote, but not their decision or reasoning. If it is based on race then they voted as a racist. I will not support that.

Then you do not support free elections, why people vote and who they vote for is purely their prerogative. To force people to vote a certain way makes the elections no longer free. In America as long as you are 18, a citizen, and not a convicted felon you are allowed to vote as long as you are registered, that's all we require as far as I know. Why change that?

 

[FoolKiller]

Then you do not support free elections, why people vote and who they vote for is purely their prerogative. To force people to vote a certain way makes the elections no longer free. In America as long as you are 18, a citizen, and not a convicted felon you are allowed to vote as long as you are registered, that's all we require as far as I know. Why change that?

Who said anything about changing that? I support their right to vote, and as such they can vote however they please. I will not deny them that.

But I will not support their decision or reasoning if I think it is wrong.

SolidFro was disagreeing with their reasoning, and you said that we should support it, no matter what it is, if we truly like the US. I will support their right to vote but I won't stand here and say that doing it for racist reasons is perfectly fine, just because they can.

I think you have misunderstood us in saying that we refuse to say we agree or support them that we think they shouldn't be allowed to do it. We are not saying that. Just because I think a person voting purely because of skin color is a complete idiot and that our country would be better served if they would stay home does not mean that I want to remove their rights.

The only thing I said shouldn't be allowed to go to a vote are policies and laws that would violate the Constitution. What would be the point of it? Those would be turned over in court anyway. Checks and balances, another founding principle of our government that prevents majority mob rule.

 

[Joey D]

It sure seems like you guys are implying they shouldn't be allowed to vote based on how they are choosing to do it. Maybe it is a misunderstanding. I support whatever reason you have for voting, I might not agree with it but I support your right to vote based on your beliefs.

I know people who voted for Obama because he is black, but I also know far more people who are staunch Democrats who voted for McCain because they didn't want "a n-word and a terrorist in the white house". These people didn't for a minute agree with anything the Republican party did. Do I agree with them? No. Do I support there right for doing what they did? Yes.

 

[livemusic]

I support whatever reason you have for voting

I support your right to vote.

These are two different things. Foolkiller supports the latter.

 

[Joey D]

There is a difference in supporting a reason and agreeing with a reason.

 

[Duke]

I do NOT support OR agree with using racism as a means of deciding your vote.

 

[Joey D]

Why do you even care how others determine their vote? It's none of your business to know.

 

[Danoff]

There is a difference in supporting a reason and agreeing with a reason.

There is a difference between not supporting something and wanting it to be illegal.

 

[RACECAR]

Why do you even care how others determine their vote? It's none of your business to know.

If it potentially takes away the rights of others, its a very huge concern.

 

[Omnis]

I'd rather have you explain your position to me. ...

I saw this but decided to let it stew instead of answering you. Did you really need someone else to point out the implications of your quote?

... Based on what you are saying you think letting the people choose is a bad thing.

Well done. You got the conclusion. Now, find the premise and, if you want, complete the enthymeme.

 

[Joey D]

You don't think letting people choose their leaders is a good thing? So you would rather have them appointed? Wouldn't that be a dictatorship and thus not freedom? You guys have a very odd way of thinking since one minute you harp on and on about freedom then you say having people be able to choose how they are governed is a bad thing.

Also why on earth are you being so cryptic about it?

 

[Sage]

I don’t think it could be any clearer. We want freedom – that means not being allowed to limit the freedom of others. If you have the freedom to legislate against others’ freedom, then you’re not living in a free country.

Simple example: If you have the freedom to enact slavery, that’s obviously not freedom for the people being enslaved.