Jump to content

Even the RIGHT is waking up


BlackJesus

Recommended Posts

I'm waking up to the fact that the right and left seem to be taking turns pounding the american tax payer in the ass, instead of the right getting to have all the fun.

One thing will be different if Obama wins:

Minorities will finally have fucked themselves, which will be a first.

I guess we can all take solace in that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wish the LEFT would as well and acknowledge that Obama isn't all that and the greatest thing since sliced bread.

THE.
MOST.
LIBERAL.
SENATOR.

Not progressive, LIBERAL. For those playing at home - think through all those initiatives that are generally viewed as liberal stances and wrap your mind around the fact that he was in favor of supporting all of them...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='713852' date='Oct 15 2008, 03:48 AM']Left and Right are archaic, anachronistic, and arbitrary terms.

Liberalism is so broadly defined as to include both laissez-faire economics and intrusive social programs.

In the meanwhile, we have got real problems to solve.[/quote]
Agreed to the furthest extent.

Generally speaking though, when you describe liberalism you're speaking to wider acceptable of social behaviors (gay / lesbian, same gender partnerships, etc.), more taxation, more government spending (although with the current Congress / administration it would be hard to tell them apart), increased spending in social programs along with additional social programs (these obviously would fall under the bigger government umbrella), acceptance of abortion.

Surely, we can all agree that these are attached to liberalism...

And, I'll agree with you that there are real problems to solve facing us... so let's agree that we need to find a new candidate that can actually fix them... and not vote for the "lesser of two evils", whatever you view as the "evils" :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='713915' date='Oct 15 2008, 04:27 PM']Agreed to the furthest extent.

Generally speaking though, when you describe liberalism you're speaking to wider acceptable of social behaviors (gay / lesbian, same gender partnerships, etc.), more taxation, more government spending (although with the current Congress / administration it would be hard to tell them apart), increased spending in social programs along with additional social programs (these obviously would fall under the bigger government umbrella), acceptance of abortion.

Surely, we can all agree that these are attached to liberalism...

And, I'll agree with you that there are real problems to solve facing us... so let's agree that we need to find a new candidate that can actually fix them... and not vote for the "lesser of two evils", whatever you view as the "evils" :D[/quote]

Vol, read the op-ed by Buckley I posted in the 'why I'm voting for Obama' thread. Interesting take from a fiscal conservative / social libertarian on Obama's potential.

[quote]...
Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
...[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='713924' date='Oct 15 2008, 10:56 AM']Vol, read the op-ed by Buckley I posted in the 'why I'm voting for Obama' thread. Interesting take from a fiscal conservative / social libertarian on Obama's potential.[/quote]
Thank you - will do.


But, keeping in mind too that it is just an opinion...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know is that the majority of American "people" were against the idea of a bailout, yet the guys in charge went against all their people to bail out the "bankers". Both Obama and McCain were for this bailout. Who do the politicians work for now? Us, the people? I don't see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='713939' date='Oct 15 2008, 11:32 AM']maybe he'll re-evaluate his position. Some call that flip-flopping.[/quote]
how can he "re-evaluate" it now??? after he's voted for it go back and say "that was a bad idea - I'm against that..."? The money's gone, spent. Or, will be by the time he has any capability to stop it.


Read the op-ed... basically he's got first-hand experience with McCain and says that he's changed from what he used to be. I agree with him 100% there - today's McCain isn't the McCain of 8 years ago.

But when he goes to Obama he has no first-hand knowledge and is guessing, just like me, about how Obama would handle monetary policy along with the vast other things the president must deal with... he just has a different conclusion on his ability to handle it and the choices Obama would make compared to me... to be clear - this is in no way a statement that I'm voting for McCain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been down the past few days with a mild flu. And though I've scaled back some of my activities, I've still gotten up and done the "absolutely necessaries." As you all have also done when you're under the weather, I'm sure.

And that sort of is my point. This is what we have. These are our choices: one of the major candidates, a principled vote for a minor candidate, or no vote at all. Now I'd be the last person to say that a vote for a minor candidate is a wasted vote. If you think that person is the best suited for the job, then by all means, cast your ballot appropriately. And, if withholding your vote is what it takes to maintain your sense of honor and integrity, then I'd find that hard to quibble with, too.

What I've been telling my friends personally is similar to what I've been saying here. We're in deep doo-doo and the party has barely started. It is going to be very important during the next few years to keep level heads, to remember that we don't get everything we want everytime we want it, and to try to put real justice and the health of our community in front of whatever ideological preferences we might have. Our ideological frameworks are handy, but they also are often impediments to a more complete and full analysis of the problems at hand. If we handicap ourselves with preconceived pigeon-holed notions in a way that prevents us from following a potential policy's implications for the future, then odds are pretty good that we'll be making quite a few mistakes.

Isn't that sort of what happened with the bailout vote? At least for some of those voting? A rushed, halfway thought-out approach to a serious problem not only delays the process and makes a resoluton that much harder, it harms individuals along the way. Now, while I cannot see the future any better than most folks, I'd bet on this: our near-term future depends upon our ability to be "neighborly" and helpful to each other. The alternative is simply too cruel to accept. If I'm able to give a family that needs a meal, a meal, I'm not going to ask them who they voted for. But that's in the future.

Right now, it behooves each person to ask themselves the sorts of questions which really matter. Because, despite what some folks think, this election really is a game-changer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='713950' date='Oct 15 2008, 05:43 PM']how can he "re-evaluate" it now??? after he's voted for it go back and say "that was a bad idea - I'm against that..."? The money's gone, spent. Or, will be by the time he has any capability to stop it.


Read the op-ed... basically he's got first-hand experience with McCain and says that he's changed from what he used to be. I agree with him 100% there - today's McCain isn't the McCain of 8 years ago.

But when he goes to Obama he has no first-hand knowledge and is guessing, just like me, about how Obama would handle monetary policy along with the vast other things the president must deal with... he just has a different conclusion on his ability to handle it and the choices Obama would make compared to me... to be clear - this is in no way a statement that I'm voting for McCain.[/quote]

I was thinking when the shit [i]really[/i] hits the fan is when the re-evaluation would take place, and hopefully, maybe he'll step up. I believe the probability of Obama stepping up is far greater than McCain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='713979' date='Oct 15 2008, 01:00 PM']I was thinking when the shit [i]really[/i] hits the fan is when the re-evaluation would take place, and hopefully, maybe he'll step up. I believe the probability of Obama stepping up is far greater than McCain.[/quote]
I hope that I'm not coming across as argumentative...

but, it'll be too late. And, of that $700 billion how much is going to FannieMae and FreddieMac (as a percentage of the whole and as a dollar amount)? Follow-up to that question - who receives the largest donation dollars from those corporations?

Follow the money, that is what I've always heard. In this instance it applies. Neither is for the people - they're both for big money and what they can do to attract as much donation as they can get. I don't see either reversing course and I don't see Obama doing so any more quickly or readily than anyone else. Only Dodd and Kerry receive more money from those two GSE's than Obama, and not by much... he's got a vested interest.

Homer is wanting me to quit bad-mouthing the candidates as it'll do no good - we've got what we've got. He is right in that essence... but as I hear so many libs / lefts / BJ's of the world say "dissention is the highest form of patriotism" - I'm dissenting against these two major party candidates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='713994' date='Oct 15 2008, 01:48 PM']but, it'll be too late. And, of that $700 billion[b] how much is going to FannieMae and FreddieMac [/b](as a percentage of the whole and as a dollar amount)? Follow-up to that question - who receives the largest donation dollars from those corporations?[/quote]
None. Sadly, that was another bailout... :party:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='713969' date='Oct 15 2008, 11:37 AM']this election really is a game-changer.[/quote]

How can it be a game changer when both options suck? Hmm should we go with Chris Perry or Cedric Benson? Super Bowl here we come!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='714013' date='Oct 15 2008, 02:37 PM']None. Sadly, that was another bailout... :party:[/quote]

Damn... I wasn't aware that the $700 billion didn't include FannieMae / FreddieMac - how much was it??? Cincy - you may be right then... he might balk down the road at the $700 billion plan but say nothing about this other bailout. That, of course, would be intellectually dishonest but hey - who cares??? It is only our money they're pissing away!!! :party:

[quote name='sois' post='714014' date='Oct 15 2008, 02:39 PM']How can it be a game changer when both options suck? Hmm should we go with Chris Perry or Cedric Benson? Super Bowl here we come!!![/quote]

Exactly. I think someone had a quote from BJ in their signature... something like:

"You can make a star shine, but you can't get a chump to make a difference..." or something to that effect. That quote is very, very, VERY relevant in this instance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a game-changer much like the elections of 1860 and 1932 were. Our future history pivots off what we do the next few years. Our response probably dictates whether we remain an important nation in the world or not. And I'm not even getting into the heartache that's coming for families and individuals.

I know this is hard for some folks to understand. I know it sounds like I'm being hyperbolic. I certainly hope that I'm mistaken.

Edit: Fannie and Freddie was 200 bill with gov constervatorship and guarantee of loans. This round is for bankers, probably a couple trillion worth. The question you all should be asking is, "What happens when derivatives blow out?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='713979' date='Oct 15 2008, 12:00 PM']I was thinking when the shit [i]really[/i] hits the fan is when the re-evaluation would take place, and hopefully, maybe he'll step up. I believe the probability of Obama stepping up is far greater than McCain.[/quote]

The next president can re-evaluate that bill immediately based on who he replaces Paulson with.

Obama does have Volcker in his camp who looked like freakin' Nostradamus when he opposed the Federal Reserve Board in 1987 over easing regulations under Glass-Steagall by expressing fears that lenders would recklessly lower loan standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and market bad loans to the public.

Well here's to hoping :anticipate:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scrotos' post='714135' date='Oct 16 2008, 06:18 AM']The next president can re-evaluate that bill immediately based on who he replaces Paulson with.

Obama does have Volcker in his camp who looked like freakin' Nostradamus when he opposed the Federal Reserve Board in 1987 over easing regulations under Glass-Steagall by expressing fears that lenders would recklessly lower loan standards in pursuit of lucrative securities offerings and market bad loans to the public.

Well here's to hoping :anticipate:[/quote]

That sounds waaaay less ambiguous than Nostradamus. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...