In regards to the original topic, I think Obama is a weak, indecisive leader. He's certainly an improvement over Shrub the Wonder Chimp but it's like he's gone to the opposite extreme from Bush in that he won't stand up for anything he believes in and won't do anything to stop the Republicans from having their way every time. He hasn't even made any serious attempt to dismantle Bush's hideous "national security" apparatus, which he should have ripped apart and thrown in the garbage as soon as he took office. We don't need a Department of Homeland Security. We don't need Guantanamo Bay. We don't need TSA porno scanners.
Out of Context Theater: Mike K "'Bloody Pussies' cracked me up"
Woolie Wool does a good job bringing up the very exceptions to Tom's assumption that I was going to point out. Conservatives and self-identified libertarians do not necessarily object to taking away rights to make society safer. They just want it to happen to other people.
"There's a reason why the libertarian and conservative crowd cries foul at every attempt at making society safer at the expense of some right."
edited 24th May '11 6:47:04 PM by Karkadinn
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Ah yes that old fallback. "I voted for it, then I stood against it".
There was no appeasing Republicans in 2001 when the Patriot Act was voted in. (Hell the Democrats actually were in charge of the Senate by a one vote margin. Or was that 2002 when that party swap happened? Either way there wasn't a strong majority in the Senate for the Republicans.) Likewise there was no appeasing Republicans in voting to authorize Iraq. Prior to 2004, there was nothing you would call an "appeasement vote".
...I was thinking mostly of Guantanamo Bay, but on some further quick Googling I am now incredibly disturbed by how much the left is supporting the Do HS, regardless of whether they're doing it as appeasement or not. I don't consider appeasement a good excuse anyway, unless it was used as a compromise to get something that the right didn't want to give.
At best, though, that only makes both sides equally guilty, and that's not even bringing up things like gay rights, other socially conservative issues, Wisconsin or Michigan. The right is transparently not a bulwark of personal freedom as its first and foremost raison d'etre; that would conflict with half its support base (religious fundamentalists), for one thing.
We don't have a real 'personal freedom' party in American politics; personal rights are divvied up between the two parties. I'm not particularly fond of that, but it's not going to change unless we change the overall voting system. See first past the post and so on in other threads.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Maybe not, but you can't say it's not doing a darn good job of upholding it.
Anyway, back to Obama. I like the fact that he can make fun of his own ears. Leaders who can laugh at themselves are that much less likely to be megalomaniacs.
...it's a joke, but I'm really kind of serious about that.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Listen; I am all for rich people not being "oppressed" and all that.....
BUT
You seem to completely ignore that this is a very small portion of their money. And if they can use that money to save another's life, why wouldn't they? I can almost understand where you are coming from, but you are telling me that you wholeheartedly believe that people should be left to die just so the rich, who can spare the money, won't. That, for lack of a better word, is despicable.
They call themselves seamstresses -Feet Of Clay@Major Tom: FPTP is not the only reason US politics boiled down to two parties. It's certainly one of them, and a quite significant one too.
Bill Clinton won his first election in no small part due to Perot splitting the vote. Bush won his first election mainly because Nader split the vote. "Splitting the vote" only happens under FPTP and is a powerful incentive to only vote for parties that have an actual chance of winning.
Splitting the vote can be advantageous as well. You would do well to know that Abraham Lincoln, yeah the guy credited with ending slavery in the US and salvaging the nation from the American Civil War, won in a split vote.
Ending slavery in the US might've been delayed decades had under an alternative voting system the election of 1860 gone a different way.
Wasn't this supposed to be about Obama at some point in time?
They call themselves seamstresses -Feet Of ClayLincoln split the popular vote, but he won the electoral college pretty handily.
EDIT: But also, just because Lincoln got elected under it doesn't mean the voting system in 1860 was perfect. Women and black people couldn't vote in 1860, but that doesn't mean it was a bad idea to give women and blacks the vote.
edited 24th May '11 8:27:39 PM by BlackHumor
@Major: So, rich people having less money makes you guys in USA Communists?
And seriously, your ideal of "American Dream" has never really been true ever since the "Wild West" stuff ended. You can't make yourself rich from the rags without ridiculous amount of luck these days.
edited 24th May '11 9:11:15 PM by SpookyMask
![]()
The idea that rich people should be forced by the goverment to give their money to the poor is communist.

You talk about human life as if it is something irreplaceable, overly important and worth sacrificing anything and everything in order to protect. Problem is, you are advocating we should play a segregationist hand, to hell with the rich we can just hose them down for everything their worth so we can give it to the poor. A noble thought, but ludicrously impractical and causing of far greater evils than simple wealth disparity. When you segregate people it matters not whether it is by skin color, creed, ethnicity, income level or any other of the myriad ways people can be separated it never ends in equality and happiness for all.
To protect human life in society means you have to protect everyone and that includes the rich. If you want to argue tax rates, quit beating around the bush and say so. Don't pull this blatant lie of an accusation that just because there are people who don't advocate Robin Hood thievery makes them somehow incapable of caring for others. If you want to argue health care, you're gonna have a much bigger fight along the same veins.