# Liberals-do you think Obama is doing a good job?



## NYC Composer (Sep 19, 2010)

Please, Repubs and Conservatives-we already know what you think. Please don't contribute.

Personally, I don't think so. His administration seems disorganized, somewhat bumbling, amateur hour among pols. Too many Czars, too many jobs left unfilled, too easily baited by the loyal opposition.

There are things I like, but so far, I couldn't define this as a successful presidency. I wouldn't call it evil, as I would the last one, but the promises of the very well run campaign haven't been fulfilled.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 19, 2010)

None of that is his fault - the jobs left unfilled are because of the Republicans. And the fact that you even mention czars is a victory for Faux News. Intelligent people (meaning progressives) shouldn't even consider that an issue.

I think he's doing a good job and don't think he's through yet, but I wish he'd ignore the politics and take harder swings at everything even if he misses. We have a healthcare bill that doesn't go far enough, a stimulus that was too small, financial reform that's too weak...but we do have all that, and it's too bad he isn't getting credit for it.

What I'd like right now is for him to take a strong leadership role in getting the unemployment down. Bill Clinton sure has the right ideas (linked in my thread yesterday).


----------



## rJames (Sep 19, 2010)

I don't know if I can comment because I thought I was in the middle of the road until the conservatives leaned so far right. Now I'm liberal in a conversation.

My read is that he is doing an admirable job under the circumstances. The jobs are left unfilled because the Senate won't confirm them. (any guesses why not?) That's why he has to do an end run with Warren.

We don't know what the economy would have done without the current stimulus (whoops, I said a bad word) but many economists say it would have been a nightmare.

Its fairly common knowledge that the Republican side of the Senate, House for that matter but it doesn't matter as much) don't want to allow anything Obama does to seem like success (and yet he is still seeing some success; although most of us would have liked to see healthcare go farther.

And the farthest wing of the Republican party, the Tea Party, mostly thinks they need to take their country back from someone who took it away. Thus creating havoc among people who cannot think for themselves.

It is the toughest of times when the American infrastructure is falling apart and the economy has all but collapsed.

And yes, the Democrats all seem disorganized and bumbling compared to the people who can point to God and say that all we need to do is pray and then do the RIGHT thing. Life is simple when you have all the answers given to you! Simpletons unite! (and its hard to fight that.)


----------



## José Herring (Sep 19, 2010)

Honestly I think that he's doing an ok job. Personally, I wish that he'd stand up to the conservative base instead of a) trying to get more of them on his side and b) be afraid of them. Honestly I think that he's a pretty decent person and is taken quite surprised by the amount of hatred leveled at him everyday by the right. They slammed him on health care yet the bill that emerged was almost word for word republican ideas from decades ago. They call him a socialist which he is not in the least bit. I don't even think that most conservatives even know what a socialist is because if they did they would realize almost immediate that he has no plans or no desire to take over all the major functions of the economy and make them state owned. The Christian right claims he's godless and yet in truth he's the most religious president we've had in a long, long time. He even said in one of his books that he spent the first 40 years of his life studying religion and the next 8 years trying to implement religious principles in public life, ie, community, sharing, love of thy neighbor, ect... The right is so fucked up on religion that they don't even know the basic religious principles of tolerance and understanding. Obama preaches that in almost every speech but it's lost on the religious right knuckle heads. Who imo aren't even religious at all.

I think he can hold his own really, but I feel sorry for him everyday. The amount of outright lies and hate speech coming from outlets like Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, ect.... is just outrageous imo. They say that it's not race based, but Bill Clinton was a lot more liberal than Obama is and I don't remember that level of hate. Sure it was tough for Clinton. The right doesn't know how to reason. They throw a bunch of beliefs together and call it a political philosophy and are so adamant about their "rightness" that it's alarming. And, no matter how many times that conservative philosophy fails this country they keep trying to cram it down everybody's throat.

I think he's in a tough spot because I never really thought that he was progressive. He's pretty middle of the road politically and personally. But the right has gotten so extreme over the fear that he's some raging quasi communist that anything he does to help is perceived by them as big brother trying to intrude in their daily lives. But honestly the way I feel if a government doesn't at least try to help the population there's really no point in having a government at all. 

Reagan gave us Al Qiada, funded them to the tune of 600 million to fight the commies. Here we are today 25 years later trying to stop them from killing us. Reagan gave us large government debt. Clinton erased the deficit and eased the debt. Bush jr. destroyed all that. Now Obama inherited a government that's a complete mess. 

Given the circumstances I think he's doing fairly well. I know I probably would have totally collapsed by now if I were president.

For the future given our history and discounting the right's constant crap I honestly feel that we're in better hands than we have been in in a long time. But, he's a slow steady kind of guy. We'll get there but it takes time.

Just my thoughts.

Jose


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 19, 2010)

Well, that's two who disagree with me and think he's doing a good job, although actually I only give half a vote to Batzdorf because he's an ideologue and I think he called me stupid.

So, One and a half votes for he's doing a good job, one against. Hurry hurry cast your vote!


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 19, 2010)

Make that two and a half. Excellent. keep 'em coming.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 19, 2010)

Well you're a NY liberal. That's a completely different breed of cat imo.

I use to be a NY liberal. I guess being in LA has swung me to the middle more than I care to realize.

But in truth NY couldn't survive without a fair bit of government intervention. When I lived in NY I realized that almost immediately. Where as government intervention in LA is just a pain in the ass. 

I love NY.

best,

Jose


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 19, 2010)

Actually, I am now an independent, so whereas I am definitely on the liberal end of things, I'm no longer a Democrat- and btw, generally speaking New York has, as an engine of taxes and productivity, typically kicked in more than its taken out.

However, I'm glad to hear you love New York. Town so nice, ya say it twice :wink:


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 19, 2010)

Unemployment as a factor in the recovery of the economy is a myth.
The American economy can recover even with a 25% unemployment rate.
The 400 bucks a week ( Nevada ) is being spent at Grocery stores and for bills, so it is a form of stimulus so even having a higher rate of unemployment won't drag down an economy, it actually allows businesses to recover with a smaller work force and less overhead, until the all important demand can rise.
We lack demand right now.
And blaming Republicans for everything is cool, but they haven't had any effect on anything since they have zero voting power.
They are acting like children and saying no to anything just to take a political stance, their voice doesn't even count, so let them die from the destructiveness that the Tea Party will bring them this year....... o-[][]-o 

Obama was handed a failing economy and 2 undeclared wars.
FDR had it made because they actually declared wars back then and this allowed them to Federalize indusrty.
We should let Obama declare war on the economy.
IMHO its day late and a dollar short as we are sure to see dozens of new morons with no skills in trade or business get elected in November.

True fiscally conservative businessmen need to be in positions of trade, and true liberals should be in charge of the social programs that benefit any American citizen.

This current 2 party system is shot, and really needs to be re designed.
We really don't have to even deal with the Miltary, that is run by the wealth of the world and we have little control over that.
If you think I am wrong just ask yourself when was the last time we declared war.......? Did we get a chance to vote or was it another Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution...?

Lets make this a real world comparison..................

Obama inherited 2 wars and a failing economy.

Would you take a job scoring an unfinished film that was 2 million dollars in the hole, the composer stole the Mac and the hardware that was before you, then you had a built in crowd of guys you just beat out for the gig as critics with microphones...............Please, don't tell me yes.......... :roll:


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 19, 2010)

chimuelo @ Sun Sep 19 said:


> Would you take a job scoring an unfinished film that was 2 million dollars in the hole, the composer stole the Mac and the hardware that was before you, then you had a built in crowd of guys you just beat out for the gig as critics with microphones...............Please, don't tell me yes.......... :roll:



Of course.

I would, however, insist on cash up front.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 19, 2010)

I'm not the least bit ideological and I didn't call you stupid, Larry. Being unabashedly liberal and knowing that conservatism sucks from top to bottom is not the same thing as being ideological.

It's absolutely true that nobody would have batted an eye about czars if it hadn't been for disgusting Faux News. The whole issue doesn't exist; it's utter bullshit. On the contrary, I didn't say you were stupid for repeating it, I said it was a victory for Faux News that someone who isn't stupid is repeating it!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 19, 2010)

> Reagan gave us Al Qiada, funded them to the tune of 600 million to fight the commies



Actually that was started secretly under Carter - it was a Zbigniew Brzezinski policy that Reagan continued, intended to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan so they'd go broke. And it really was the straw that broke the back of their empire, so I don't fault Reagan for that policy. I do agree with your general point about our having created blowback - and having a nasty history of backing the wrong side - but that particular move was probably the right one.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 19, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Sep 19 said:


> > Reagan gave us Al Qiada, funded them to the tune of 600 million to fight the commies
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that was started secretly under Carter - it was a Zbigniew Brzezinski policy that Reagan continued, intended to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan so they'd go broke. And it really was the straw that broke the back of their empire, so I don't fault Reagan for that policy. I do agree with your general point about our having created blowback - and having a nasty history of backing the wrong side - but that particular move was probably the right one.



As I understanding it Brzezinski came up with the idea under Carter but it wasn't funded until the Reagan administration back in 1982. I could have it wrong as I've never really bothered to study it that much. Either way I disagree. It may have been the straw that broke the camels back but funding zealot terrorist is never a good idea.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 19, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Sep 19 said:


> I'm not the least bit ideological and I didn't call you stupid, Larry. Being unabashedly liberal and knowing that conservatism sucks from top to bottom is not the same thing as being ideological.



Of course it is, Nick.

Ideology:


"1 ( pl. -gies) a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy : the ideology of republicanism."

Argue with me at will, but please don't stretch my credulity.


----------



## Narval (Sep 20, 2010)

Given that there's nothing more constant than change, 
that makes liberalism the most conservative ideology.

Ideology is good btw, 
when it is a coherent system of ideas. 
Very few can handle 
a coherent system of ideas. 
And that's probably why 
people give ideology a bad name - 
to mask their own incapacity with it. 

All grapes are sour, ask any fox.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 20, 2010)

Narval @ Mon Sep 20 said:


> Given that there's nothing more constant than change,
> that makes liberalism the most conservative ideology.
> 
> Ideology is good btw,
> ...



Wow. Deep. Or incoherent.


----------



## Narval (Sep 20, 2010)

Neither. Just ideological.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 20, 2010)

I strive for the middle of the road. My very liberal brother is somewhat disillusioned these days because I have started leaning a bit to the right, largely as a reaction to the things going on in Harrisburg (my state capital) and Washington DC.

I believe that any decent society ought to have some form of safety net because there will ALWAYS be a group that is under-privileged, and that used to be through no real fault of their own.

Current entitlement programs are increasing the size of that group by providing hand-outs and basically making that group depend on the government for their very survival. I don't think that's a very nice thing to do to anyone.

On the other side of the coin, the current administration, and the one that preceded it, seem to think that a business can be too large to be allowed to fail. That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Of course businesses fail, large and small, and of course those failures inflict tremendous suffering on folks that had nothing to do with the failure, while the greedy [email protected][email protected]$ that sucked the life out of the company continue to do quite well.

Greed is a part of human nature as much as is apathy. The management teams and union leaders know this, and they also know that the greedy folks tend to be more driven (by definition) than the apathetic.

As with the whole Left vs. Right thing, greedy vs lazy is the wrong question! There will always be people at either extreme of any debate.

Used to be that the majority lived in the middle, and I suspect they still do, but they are getting pushed or pulled to the outside, because... well, because it works.

IF the current administration had made more of an effort to pull everyone to the middle, I'd have been thrilled.

IF the previous administration had made more of an effort to pull everyone to the middle I'd have been pleased.

Sadly, that doesn't see to be the way these folks do things, largely because being an elected official has become a career path instead of an obligation. BIG MISTAKE!

So no, I don't think the current administration is accomplishing much, and I do not think much of what they've accomplished.

Creating a socialist state is not going to succeed any more than allowing rampant greed take over the capitalist state.

The current executive and legislative branches were handed the keys to the city, and they could have done much good, but they've spent all their political capital, and energy, pushing an extremist agenda.

Pity!


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 20, 2010)

He has definitely done some things I haven't been happy about (frankly I'm scared about where on the spectrum Kagan will turn out to be), but I'd say he's done more right than wrong. I think his actions haven't been so bad but the messaging to the public has been pretty awful. There have been many cases where good things have gotten done but the spin on it is negative.

The fact is that the economy was in horrible shape when he took office, and the deficit/debt was already huge. People don't realize that things could have been far worse and that the stimulus and other programs to help the economy probably are working at least to some degree. But most of the public simply isn't aware of the real situation.



wst3 @ Mon Sep 20 said:


> Creating a socialist state...



Are you sure you're a liberal?


----------



## wst3 (Sep 20, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Mon Sep 20 said:


> wst3 @ Mon Sep 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Creating a socialist state...
> ...



I'm not sure what I am really... I dislike labels in general, but they can serve a purpose.

When it comes the sharing the wealth I believe the following two things to be ideal, if seldom true:
1) I believe that one of the things that drives a society is the opportunity to excel. That's a good thing, really, for without it we would miss out on many good things (think computers, sample libraries, etc<G>). If there is no reward for success then people will not strive to succeed. Sad, but realistic.
2) I believe that we ALL owe support to those who have not been as fortunate as we have. The whole rampant greed thing comes into play here, some people have no concept of scale, they want it all for themselves.

Striking a balance may be impossible, but I'd like to think that is not the case.

If we have to err, I believe we need to err in the direction that inspires people to create art, jobs, etc, not the direction that allows people to become dependent on a system that really ought to be helping them to reach a higher level of success. Allowing people to become dependent is, I think, insulting at best. 

I also believe that education is the golden bullet<G>... if that makes me naive so be it.

If any of the above disqualifies me then I guess I'll just have to burn my liberal card after all! (no offense taken, by the way... really don't care for either label!)


----------



## rgames (Sep 20, 2010)

I think Obama is doing OK. Solidly average. He's doing pretty much what I expected, anyway. People feel disappointed with him because he was supposed to be a great savior and he's only average. Plus people got so wrapped up in the Obama phenomenon that they didn't see the fact that he is, in fact, a through-and-through politician, moreso than just about any other we've seen in recent hiòA   ç\TA   ç\UA   ç\VA   ç\WA   ç\XA   ç\YA   ç\ZA   ç\[A   ç\\A   ç\]A   ç\^A   ç\_A   ç\`A   ç\aA   ç\bA   ç\cA   ç\dA   ç\eA   ç\fA   ç\gA   ç\hA   ç\iA   ç\jA   ç\kA   ç\lA   ç\mA   ç\nB   ç\oB   ç\pB   ç\qB   ç\rB   ç\sB   ç\tB   ç\uB   ç\vB   ç\wB   ç\xB   ç\yB   ç\zB   ç\{B   ç\|B   ç\}B   ç\~B   ç\


----------



## JohnG (Sep 20, 2010)

Critics have attacked Obama for failing to fix everything in a year or two. BP's oil spill, the insane debt levels we've built up for 20-30 years (personal, corporate, Federal), and two unfunded wars.

It is ironic to me that much of this criticism comes from people who, at least as-advertised, want government to do less and be smaller.

To address the question directly:

I give Obama full marks because he tackled, and actually altered for the better, the single biggest threat we face in the US: health care costs. Medicare's unfunded $89 TRILLION dollar liability jeopardises the Federal and state governments far more than the cost of wars or even the (relatively) manageable and smaller social security liability. Search "unfunded medicare liability" if you are surprised by how large this figure is.

It is also ironic to me that Bush's massive, massive new entitlement, the prescription drug benefit -- which represents $17 trillion in aggregate future costs -- is actually greater _on its own_ than the entire Social Security unfunded liability. But I heard few shouting "socialised medicine" when he proposed it.

The health care bill is not what I'd have chosen and is not going to work perfectly as-is, but it has tipped over the table, and I sincerely hope we don't ever get back to where we were. The UK took decades of tinkering with their national health; personally I think that's where we inevitably will end up (I know -- not popular!) but with no changes we would be doomed.

We already do have de facto health care rationing. It is going to get a hell of a lot worse.

There are of course some things I don't like but at least the number one threat to the couòM   çarM   çasM   çatM


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 20, 2010)

I agree with all of that (what JohnG says), but I'd still be more excited if all the big moves Obama has made went farther. That's politics, though; we don't live in Nirvana.

Larry, I'm not stretching anything. Meanwhile you're implying that I'm irrational. That's the word you really mean, isn't it? Putting ideology in place of reality?

Look, if conservatives believe that government should butt out of everything as a matter of principle (and "we have too many czars" is a particularly shallow reflection of that line of non-reasoning, a propaganda line that was grown in the studios of Faux News), they're ideological. But contrary to popular belief, people like me don't automatically believe the opposite - that we want government to butt in for no good reason other than that we want to pay higher taxes so we can have bigger government!


----------



## José Herring (Sep 20, 2010)

Both parties want big government. They just want government to do different functions.

Conservatives generally want government to expand the influence of religion through law, they want bigger military for "defense" and they generally lead to bigger law enforcement. Not saying that this is intrinsically bad, but all of that at my very core makes me very uncomfortable.

But if you look at the history of both parties you'll realize that it's really just one party. Use to be called the Democratic Republicans. Then they split a part and the Democrats sided with Labor and the Republicans sided with Industry. Democrats have mostly been in power because of course there are more laborers than there are robber barons. 

The idea of attaching one party as liberal and another as conservative is totally false imo. Both terms are completely misunderstood by both parties. I tend to be neither yet people accuse me of being liberal all the time because I believe in investing in education and I believe in a the safety net idea. I also believe that people should work their way out of any social programs and I don't believe in the idea that a civilization should be tooth and claw like so many republican friends of mine believe.

So in my mind it's not whether or not government should be involved, but how and why.


----------



## Narval (Sep 20, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Sep 20 said:


> implying that I'm irrational. That's the word you really mean, isn't it? Putting ideology in place of reality?


Actually, one is irrational when putting "reality" 
(one's own reality) 
in the place of reason. 

On the other hand, ideology, 
as a coherent system of ideas and principles, 
is actually rational, 
for it strips reality of its appearances 
and looks at it as it is and not as it seems.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 20, 2010)

Then how do you explain ideologies that fail when tried in reality? Reality is reality no matter how you look at it; public policy responses to reality are another matter, and if your reasoning is nonsense - as 99% of all conservative ideology is - then it doesn't work.

Anyway, I don't really understand what you're getting at. Larry called me "ideological" because 1. he's annoyed that I'm right about the czars "issue" being totally idiotic, and 2. he's retaliating by calling me irrational.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 20, 2010)

Well said John G.

We could knit pick everything Obamas advisors have screwed up and cackle like Hens on the debt, but WE are the ones who elected these career politicians, so the fault is ours.

But as you so eloquently stated, Obama gets Kudos for shaking the tree of shareholder greed in the Insurance Companies.
As it stands, the mandatory coverage of pre existing conditions was brilliant and needed for many Americans have already paid into the system, who when they need it most are denied by the bean counters.................its an outrage, so Obama can fail in many other areas but he and Nancy Pelosi have done an excellent job.

I was laughed at before for saying Hillary will resign and run in 2012 against Obama. It makes the perfect playing field for Hillary though. She'd be a fool to stay on as Sec Of State. Besides, Bill needs to be back in the game as his support for people Obama doesn't back is a prime example of plans for the future.

The only thing that will spoil the recovery is a get nothing done Congress with the Tea Party taking control.
As much as I would love to see the Chris Dodd/John Kerry/Barney Franke/Charley Rangle thieves get the boot, the idea of having unskilled, inexperienced representatives is even scarier.

Hang on for 2 years until Bill and Hillary come back....
Only this time, she will be banging the Young Male interns................Ankyu.
I bet she can take on multiple players.............she's ferocious.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 20, 2010)

Hillary might want to try running, but she would be tilting at a windmill. And I'm not sure what other options she has in the next couple years that would be better than her current position.

When was the last time a sitting president lost the primary (if ever)?


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 20, 2010)

MikeC........

Times have changed.
And if you hear what Bill and Hillary are saying you'll notice they are on an entirely differnt page than the White House advisors care to notice.
When Obama sent Geitner and other tax cheats to China, it was a job that the Sec Of State ALWAYS is sent out to do. This was a slap across Hillarys' face. One she won't forget about anytime soon, and also remember when Clinton was tagged as a racist during the campaign....? OMG he was livid.

Geitners trip was a complete failure as he begged for cash, and was sent home packing. He then went to Saudi Arabia and judging by the remarks the Suadis made at an OPEC meeting right after he left seems to point out another complete failure as a diplomat. He wasn't even elected, so he's a perfect fall guy.
But right after he had his hat handed to him in the Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia, the OPEC leaders made an announcement about how they were considering to use another form of currency than the US Dollar.................So its safe to assume he failed, even though the bought and paid for media outlets make no mention of this failed trip.

The USD is the only way to purchase foriegn Oil, and if that ever changes, we will be screwed royally and even might have to consider a UN type of currency like the Chinese will most likely demand.

But back to the CLintons.
They're a pair of coiled snakes, and know better than anyone about political survival.
Their comments are evident to me that they have their own plan in place already.
Don't forget how darn right mean Hillary can be. Check out her posture during the Nixon trials. She was in the background back then sharpening her skills as a political lawyer and hatchet women. She isn't going to wait until 2016.
Now that Chelsea has mergerd ( married ) into the Banking community of New England, there's no distractions, and Hillary wants revenge,.................I can sense it.

Besides, every liberal in DC except Harry Reid, Nancy P. and Bernie Sanders are running scared and distancing themselves from Obama. Lets say the democrats actually hang onto their positions, Obama will surely not forgive them. It will take a skillful politician to bring the sheep back into the fold.............Hence Bill Clinton. He will take the heat for Hillary as she can play Admiral Kirk, with Bill as Spock.
I actually am excited. I don't care for the Unions that Obama has tied his wagon to. I am a member of 3 Unions and yes they make me great money, but they have also lowered the skill of workers, and misuse the poltical action fees they hijack from us.
They are totally corrupt and should never have access to a politician.

If there's anything I despise about Obamas advisors is their lack of experience, coordination in the media, and having Union Thugs camped out in the White House. Usually when a Union doesn't get its way, it re-negs on campaign funding and can cause serious political fallout as they could bring huge pressure like they do to Banking CEO's by going to their house and letting their children in school know who they are. 

I don't mind the Unions leaning on a large corpration for higher wages, which allows them to build on the strip of Las Vegas, etc.
But having these thugs dictate policy to the President is reprehensible.
The AFL-CIO witheld 50 Million in campaign funds until Congress passed the newest legislation giving businesses 30 Billion to borrow.
Is this the way you want your leaders to conduct themselves...........?
I think its criminal and needs to be stopped.

But I do admire the man for his courage and dedication.


----------



## Narval (Sep 20, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Sep 20 said:


> Then how do you explain ideologies that fail when tried in reality?


They only fail when they're incoherent. And since "incoherent ideology" is a contradiction in terms, an ideology that doesn't work is not an ideology. Similarly, "working ideology" is a redundancy. As opposed to Microsoft Works, which is an oxymoron.  



> Reality is reality no matter how you look at it;


Reality is reality, correct, but "your reality" depends a great deal on how you look at it - which may or may not be a rational way, or in total sync with what's out there. A very long discussion, this "reality" subject.



> public policy responses to reality are another matter, and if your reasoning is nonsense - as 99% of all conservative ideology is - then it doesn't work.


If it doesn't work, then, as I said, it's incoherent. If it is coherent, it will surely work. Reason-based ethics is a coherent ideology, and that's precisely why it works. Experiment-based science is a coherent ideology, and that's precisely why it works. Public-service politics is a coherent ideology, and that's precisely why it works. And so on.



> Anyway, I don't really understand what you're getting at. Larry called me "ideological" because 1. he's annoyed that I'm right about the czars "issue" being totally idiotic, and 2. he's retaliating by calling me irrational.


My point is that having an ideology, i.e. a coherent system of ideas and principles, is good and rational, while not having one is bad and irrational. That's all I wanted to say. Sorry for the rant. Carry on.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 20, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Sep 20 said:


> Then how do you explain ideologies that fail when tried in reality? Reality is reality no matter how you look at it; public policy responses to reality are another matter, and if your reasoning is nonsense - as 99% of all conservative ideology is - then it doesn't work.
> 
> Anyway, I don't really understand what you're getting at. Larry called me "ideological" because 1. he's annoyed that I'm right about the czars "issue" being totally idiotic, and 2. he's retaliating by calling me irrational.



Sorry, Nick-you're incorrect. I called you an ideologue because I believe you ARE one, and pulled the dictionary definition to illustrate what it means. There was nothing derogatory in the definition, nor did it include anything about irrationality. You have a pretty singular political point of view, and your mantra seems to be "and I'm right". That= ideolgoue to me, or annoying at least, as is the word "idiotic".
I'm not into retaliation, btw, just discussion. I try to stay away from personalizing debate. 


It's obvious I need to use more smileys, because the half a vote and you calling me stupid bit was mostly tongue in cheek, though you did say progressives are not allowed to stray from the party line, otherwise they are...(what was the word you used, stupid?).. and doing 'Faux news''s work for them (gosh, I hate that sort of rah rah team Olberman/O'Reilly contempt). Whereas I believe fringe conservatives in this country to be wackadoodles, I also believe fringe liberals to be fairly wacky. The difference is-when conservatives cry out for money, they're trying to protect the wealth of the top 2% of the nation. When liberals do, they are trying to protect the safety net that combats poverty and lack of health care and housing for the poorest among us. Ergo, as a humanist, I'm a liberal.

I agree that Obama walked into a horrendous financial situation and two wars. His job is not one I'd want. I voted for him and had high hopes. I'm deeply disappointed by the administration's support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is prejudicial against gay rights in my view. I'm disappointed in the jamming through of a healthcare bill that no one understands, and despite the opposition trying to stonewall the entire process, I think it could have been done better. I wanted a comprehensive health care bill for sure-maybe it just was't possible-or maybe, even with a bully pulpit and control of Congress, Obama was just not experienced enough to play power politics and get something more comprehensible passed.

I believe the TARP was absolutely necessary, yet the way it was cobbled together left few possibilities for accountability, and little control over executive compensation, and I don't blame the American people for being mighty pissed off about that.

I'm disappointed regarding the clarity of the initial stimulus package. Where did the money go? In what way, as our President, did he make that clear and transparent?

Finreg looks like a total mess so far, with insufficient teeth to keep us from repeating the same patterns allowing risky financial products such as derivatives. As a side note, LOVED the Basel talks- the banks get EIGHT YEARS to capitalize up to defined levels we haven't even agreed to! Oy.

There are many good things about Obama as well, but I am here to criticize Caesar, not to praise him.

More on czars, czarinas and unfilled positions to follow.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 20, 2010)

Well, I'm not ideological. I am always right, but that's different.

However, I think we're pretty much in agreement on the substance of what you're saying - on pretty much every issue. Well, the healthcare reforms had to be complicated - it's a complicated system. But they need to explain it better to fight against right-wing nuts who want to reverse it.

***
Narval...I'm afraid I don't follow your semantics or understand the significance of any of the distinctions you're drawing.

Ideologies can be right or wrong in all or part, independently of whether they're coherent. Socialism and pure capitalism are both coherent ideologies, but they both contain things that work and things that don't.


----------



## Narval (Sep 20, 2010)

Hint - ideologies are not set in stone but flexible. Or, as Groucho Marx put it, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." :D


----------



## Thonex (Sep 20, 2010)

I think 1 thing that people forget is it's not always about how a president "did.... but sometimes its' about what he "didn't do. He didn't let this country slip into a financial abyss. He didn't try to change certain things just for the sake of changing them and then ruining things. Bush... is a perfect example of talking something and flushing it down the toilet. Obama isn't doing that. 

It's hard to say, but I kind of view Obama as a pilot of a plane that was spinning out of control and he brought it in for a relatively smooth landing. Was the food good? Did the plane get to it's final destination yet? Maybe not, but I think he helped save a country that was somewhat spinning out of control.

Cheers,

Andrew K


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 20, 2010)

If Hillary were to run, it would be a political strategy of some sort and not a serious attempt since she knows she'd have no shot at actually winning. To lose a primary, a president would probably need an approval rating under 20%.


----------



## rgames (Sep 20, 2010)

Thonex @ Mon Sep 20 said:


> He didn't let this country slip into a financial abyss.


How do you come to that conclusion?



> Bush... is a perfect example of talking something and flushing it down the toilet.


How do you come to that conclusion?

Not trying to be argumentative - I hear comments like that on a regular basis but don't understand how they are justified.

I think Bush and Obama are pretty even in the blame / credit balance.

rgames


----------



## Narval (Sep 20, 2010)

rgames @ Mon Sep 20 said:


> I think Bush and Obama are pretty even in the blame / credit balance.


How do you come to that conclusion?

:D


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 21, 2010)

Mike C.
It will be as low as Congress....
Obama is the kind of guy to finish his run no natter what the cost.
Executive decisions will clear in even more unelected officials tied into Union thugs which IMHO infuriates the public.
Sure,Union guys are getting all kinds of help from the White House, but the average Joe who's trying to feed his family and doesn't really care about Politics has suddenly seen the Union guys getting all of the gravy, and the Tax paying guys barely hanging onto his family and home. 
I hear people like this complaining as I try to buy produce, and stand in lines at the Dollar store where lots of us are going since we have to conserve our limited income.
Here'a another thing I noticed too. Many of my friends are Legal Mexicans who have paid their dues and play by the rules and they are furious that they have taken 8 years in some cases to get their status.
Its not just Obama, its Eric Holder, its the Unions, and the whole gang of proffessors and lawyers he surrounds himself by that are drawing so much anger.
Eric Holder and his radical views have caused so much anger in their own ranks its astounding. We expect the Attorney General to take down the criminal element in our society, not defend them.
Hillary has already sown confusion and going against the grain, but recently seeing Bill Clinton making some moves and showing actual leadership which is different than just jamming bills through Congress.
IMHO Obama was advised to just go for it since they have already figured on him being one term. I doubt the Dems can be this organized,but with the Clintons in place to smooth things over it makes perfect sense.
We can compare notes in summer 2012.
In Vegas I actually bet on politics instead of NFL games and Black Jack.
The long shots pay better, and the general betting is much more predictable than loads of hopeful rookies.......... :mrgreen: 

And how about those 9r's almost whooping the SuperBowl champs in the last 2:00's.........Great game..............ankyu.

CiaoMein..


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 21, 2010)

rgames @ Mon Sep 20 said:


> How do you come to that conclusion?



It seems pretty obvious to me, the giant problems started while Bush was in office and now that Obama is in, it stopped getting worse for the most part and started getting better. Sure, it would be great if it was getting better faster but given the magnitude of the problem I am happy that it isn't much worse and that we're seeing any improvement at all.

Just look at job losses, the numbers kept going up and up until Bush left office then finally started dropping when he left.

I'd be curious to hear the reasoning that the two are equally to blame.



chimuelo @ Tue Sep 21 said:


> It will be as low as Congress....



You really think his approval ratings will get down around 18%? We'll see. (The numbers go back to FDR and no president has had their numbers get that low)



chimuelo @ Tue Sep 21 said:


> Executive decisions will clear in even more unelected officials tied into Union thugs which IMHO infuriates the public.



No question that the public is infuriated, but when they're asked what the problem is I doubt "unelected officials tied into Union thugs" cracks the top twenty reasons.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2010)

TARP should have had strings attached, including restoring Glass-Steagal, limiting executive pay to no more than $50 billion a month, etc.

But it did stem the crisis.

Then the stimulus picked up growth last year even though it was too small to last long enough (note that the speed the money is spent is what affects growth, not the amount, so the money that's left won't have as much effect...opening the door for Repubs to say it didn't work).

And of course unemployment would be far worse if he hadn't bailed out the automobile industry - which by the way Bush was planning on doing too.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2010)

> recently seeing Bill Clinton making some moves and showing actual leadership



I was impressed at what he said, but now I see there's some controversy. Clinton says there's a mismatch - people aren't trained for the jobs that are out there (and also underwater mortgages have people pinned people down, but that's a smaller issue). But Paul Krugman and others say that if there were a mismatch we'd see employment in some areas but not others; instead we're seeing declines all over the place.

...which isn't to say that there aren't some areas like construction with much higher unemployment, of course.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 21, 2010)

They did their best to keep the stimulus under a trillion. But we know they have nobody to stop them so here and there is another 30 billion, 50 billion here and none of it is from the first stimulus. 
It makes me wonder why even make an announcement. It only weakens us overseas, and its all unpaid for, virtual money when you get the hard data.

The fact that the economic team has jumped ship or either made an announcement to leave is just more bad news. This means they don't see a future regardless who wins in November.

We need exporting to bump our GDP but sadly the Presidents backers have priced the Unions out of the market.
This means that non Union shops and manufacturing have to pick up the slack. We all know Obama cannot allow that to happen as long as he sleeps with Unions and George Soros.

BTW. Anyone notice as soon as BP had the Oil Spill that Soros invested Billions into a Brazilian Oil Company....? Whats even funnier is that I had to read a Mexican media report from Latin America to hear that.
Then they even did a follow up by showing that Congress has decided to give Mexico and Brazil Billions of money to drill for Oil........
I guess you cannot arrest the President for insider trading though.

We need the Clintons regardless of how much waffling Bill does. Hillary has now plenty of Foreign experience and actually was percieved around the World as one tough lady. Her husband cheats on her,.................no biggie, she has had her eye on the ball by gaining a Senate seat in a state she never hardly visited. People love her, I fear her actually.

I pray that she runs in 2012. We already have elected a mixed race radical man to office out of desperation, while we are still desperate lets get some tough gal with tons and tons of political skills and arm twisting.
If the dems dont get her in soon, Sarah Palin might actually get a chance...............please dont tell me we are that desperate.
I will move to Canada and learn French.
I can see it now. Palin bowing in prayer and asking for divine intervention........Armeggedon >8o


----------



## rgames (Sep 21, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Tue Sep 21 said:


> It seems pretty obvious to me, the giant problems started while Bush was in office and now that Obama is in, it stopped getting worse for the most part and started getting better.


So, the fact the most recent recession started while Bush was in office means that he's to blame? I don't follow that logic - the Red Sox also won the pennant while he was in office. Does he get the credit for that, as well?

Lots of things happened while Bush was in office - many of them have nothing to do with him. The simple fact that the economy started slowing while he was in office does not implicate him as the cause.



> TARP should have had strings attached, including restoring Glass-Steagal, limiting executive pay to no more than $50 billion a month, etc. But it did stem the crisis.



Agree it probably helped to stem the crisis. Regardless, the TARP was in place before Obama took office. People think Obama owns the stimulus but, in fact, it was a Bush administration action.

rgames


----------



## wst3 (Sep 21, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Sep 21 said:


> And of course unemployment would be far worse if he hadn't bailed out the automobile industry - which by the way Bush was planning on doing too.



This is where I part ways with most of you... no way anyone will ever convince me that a business is too large to fail. Makes no sense whatsoever to me... look back a few years, lots of big automobile companies have failed, and put people out of work, and from that came new companies with new ideas. The Packard Motor Company sits above the expressway into Philadelphia as a monument to just that!

If a business is going to fail then it is going to fail... all you can really do is postpone the inevitable, or prop it up with other people's money, which I think will still result in postponing the inevitable - but the jury is still out on that!

Not that I want to see folks out of work... been there, done that, still digging out of the mess it created for my family. Unemployment sux! But, I understood the risks when I went to work for a start-up, and did not expect anyone to bail me out when it failed.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 21, 2010)

See, this is why I say I'm not an ideologue and other people are. This is not a case of culling weak companies - it's a massive segment of our economy that is perfectly viable (all the companies are doing fine now), and the few tens of billions lent to them saved way more than that...not even in the long run but in the short run. The automobile industry was mostly collateral damage in the economic crash. Yeah they made business mistakes, but it was much more than that.

That aside, the idea that weak companies should always be allowed to fail is ideological. Newspapers aren't making money, but should they all be allowed to fail? How about the entire broadcast industry? Or the entire entertainment industry, including the entire record business? Often the practical realities of living in a society with fellow human beings is more important than some stupid f-ing ideology.

And by the way "too big to fail" was about the financial industry, not the automobile industry.

****


> Regardless, the TARP was in place before Obama took office. People think Obama owns the stimulus but, in fact, it was a Bush administration action



Well, the 2008 stimulus was Bush's and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was Obama's (and the Democrats' + three Republicans') doing. And TARP - the financial industry bailout - was Bush's but continued by Obama.

But I still say that every administration would have had no choice but to bail out the financial and auto industries and enact a big stimulus. Bush's stimulus didn't do much because it was all across-the-board tax cuts, but if he'd been in power last year he would have pushed for a big one too. It was the only choice, regardless of what Republicans say now about it not having worked.


----------



## Narval (Sep 21, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> the idea that weak companies should always be allowed to fail is ideological.


No it's not. An isolated idea can't be ideological. Ideology is a system of coherent ideas - coherent with each other and coherent with the outward realities they address.




> Newspapers aren't making money, but should they all be allowed to fail? How about the entire broadcast industry? Or the entire entertainment industry, including the entire record business?


That certain things shouldn't be allowed to fail is part of an ideology. Ideology is good. And I mean good for the people who care for those certain things. By not allowing those certain things to fail, they implicitly affirm their belief in (and support for) a coherent system of ideas, i.e. an ideology. By not allowing those things to fail, they are ideologues.




> Often the practical realities of living in a society with fellow human beings is more important than some stupid f-ing ideology.


Human beings can't live together without a common ideology. For the individual, ideologies may or may not be important. He may even call them fucking stupid. But when it comes to communities, without an ideology they would fall apart. So, the practical realities of living in a society are rooted in and depend entirely on a common ideology.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2010)

Thonex @ Mon Sep 20 said:


> I think 1 thing that people forget is it's not always about how a president "did.... but sometimes its' about what he "didn't do. He didn't let this country slip into a financial abyss. He didn't try to change certain things just for the sake of changing them and then ruining things. Bush... is a perfect example of talking something and flushing it down the toilet. Obama isn't doing that.
> 
> It's hard to say, but I kind of view Obama as a pilot of a plane that was spinning out of control and he brought it in for a relatively smooth landing. Was the food good? Did the plane get to it's final destination yet? Maybe not, but I think he helped save a country that was somewhat spinning out of control.
> 
> ...



Andrew-

Essentially, I agree with you, but anyone who watched and admired the organization that elected him (and I'm talking about his team not the Dem party hacks) HAD to think that the guy was either a really good, organized manager or had PEOPLE who were. I have not gotten that feeling from the performance of his administration. Where's Rahm? What the heck's going on in Afghanistan/Pakistan? What's Eric Holder DOING...he seems to be bumbling at every turn .Hillary Clinton seems to be the only effective member of the administration. Why WAS the stimulus package underweight? Why did it take them all so long to realize that hands across the aisle wasn't going to happen, that they had the bully pulpit AND Congress and could ramrod anything they wanted through??

Neither the transparency he promised nor the earmarks he vowed to vanquish nor the support for gay rights he promised has materialized. We're still waiting for 'don't ask, don't tell' to be repealed, for chrissake. The Administration is defending DOMA. Is Guantanamo finally closed??

Yes, he steadied the ship, and doesn't get enough credit for it. He is reaching out to the Muslim world, an initiative that could pay great dividends if the fringe right doesn't defeat his efforts at good will. I think he's a GOOD man, and we fall on the same side of the ethical spectrum on many things. By and large , though, I don't think he's been anywhere near as effective as I'd hoped. I pray he puts it together fast, because 8 years of Bush had me looking longingly at Scandinavia, and I don't want to feel that way again.

Here endeth the rant.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 22, 2010)

The Rant Never Ends.........
Obama if left alone w/o paybacks and comprimise would have achieved much more and actually kept his promises.
He was used by a few large groups of the elite and muscled by the Unions.
Then his foreign policy is dictated by the debt with China and the Saudi Kings. Why else would you bow and suck face like he did..? So his hands are tied.

During these tough times to save Medicare and Social Security from the decades of theft and Ponzi schemes the Insurance companies had to be re structured. We got the short end of the stick, but at least now the Conservatives can show their skills ( if any ) by making some corrections which I hope they do instead of just de funding it. Insurance companies have had record profits for decades and was the proper target to reign in on. I have faith that it will eventually become a better program.
But politics of no comprimise is whats killing us. Obama seemed like the perfect guy to bring all parties to the same page, but this isnt going to happen. 

These extended tax cuts are another political joke. The idea of taxing the wealthy is just a distraction as we all know they have been warned and will shelter their money just like the wealthy politicians that want to pass these laws. The dividend taxation is whats going to kill Middle America. It will rise under a typical DC pack it all in one law that will cause the retirees who live off of their life long dividends to sell everything they have by December 31st to avoid a 25% increase over their current 14-15% taxation. They wont tell you that this 3 trillion plus pool of cash is what they are going after. They tell you its the evil rich guys, in esscense, themselves, and they know too well that a 6 month warning will cause tax shelters, just like they have. Charley Rangle who writes our tax laws is a pro at sheltering offshore accounts, and if that wasn't enough then he lies about the money he has stolen from us...................PHuck these clowns.

So when you see any laws being jammed into Congress they benefit George Soros, the Unions and other folks who backed the Axelrod/Rahm team. Obama was the perfect front man. No experience and great teleprompting skills is what they wanted, and its what they got. Besiedes, anyone who disagrees must be a racist, just ask the lovely and talented Maureen Dowd who works for the elite Mexican owned NYTimes. She is very skillful at spreading this white guilt.

Its pretty simple. Would you want an all Republican White House, COngress & Senate again...........NO..
Do you want this all Democrat corrupt pocket lining Liberal administration COngress and Senate ..........NO WAY.
Our best bet is to recreate the wealth we saw when there was comprimise from a COnservative majority in the COngress, a Democratic majority in the Senate and the Clintons in the White House.
It worked before, and it will work again.
The Bush gang and now the Obama Soros/Union shop have failed us for 10 years......enough is enough.
Clintons will surely accept the Dubai and Saudi donations via his Presidential Library. This coupled with private and corporate campagin contributions will show such immense strength that the DNC will be forced to reconsider its nominee.

Clinton 2012.............I like the way that sounds.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 22, 2010)

rgames @ Tue Sep 21 said:


> Lots of things happened while Bush was in office - many of them have nothing to do with him.



Of course. But you really think the president has nothing to do with the economy? When both sides refer to "the Bush tax cuts" they are talking about something that just coincidentally happened while he was in office and he had nothing to do with them?

And if you don't think the president needs to take responsibility for things that happen under his administration, why don't you apply the same standard to Obama?


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 22, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> But Obama gets the blame for a lot, as well. His entire campaign was built on the theme "economic armageddon is headed your way." Because our economy is driven primarily by consumer sentiment, once you convince people of that fact, it will become reality. That's an irresponsible use of a position of power. But it's politics, so it's to be expected of a politician.



I'm confused.

Do you think that the economy wasn't headed for big problems, and that Obama was just making that up?

Or do you think that the economy was headed for big problems (if not in the midst of them already) but Obama should have refrained from bringing that up and instead pretended everything is OK?


I'm also curious what specifically Obama said during the campaign along the lines of "economic armageddon is headed your way."


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2010)

Really...you're a liberal, Richard?


----------



## Mike Connelly (Sep 22, 2010)

I was wondering that too...


----------



## rgames (Sep 22, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> Do you think that the economy wasn't headed for big problems, and that Obama was just making that up?


There's no question we were headed for trouble - that's why Bush passed TARP. However, I believe Obama grossly exaggerated the magnitude of the problem in order to get elected. And it became a self-fulfilling pophecy to some extent. (I admit, of course, that there's no way to say how much Obama's influence affected ths situation, but it definitely had an effect).

re: specifics: remember when the Obama campaign jumped all over McCain for saying "our economy is strong"? They said he's out of touch, weak on the economy, etc.

Then, a few months after taking office, the Obama administration said "our economy is strong." And they made that statement when things were arguably much worse than when McCain made the comment.

Why did that happen?

Well, like I said, if you hold a position of authority, the responsible thing to do is to reassure people, not scare them. Unless you're trying to win an election, of course, then you scare the hell out of them and change your story after you win so that you can reverse the process and be the savior. That's exactly what Obama did and it's irresponsible.

Again, though, it's not unheard of in the world of politics. And, like I said, Obama will use whatver for of spin is necessary to achieve his political goals. Doesn't make him a bad guy, necessarily, but it does hilight the fact that he places politics ahead of principle.

Side note for self-promotion here: I TOTALLY predicted that exact course of events - you can look back at my VI-Control posts during then after the election. 

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 22, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> Really...you're a liberal, Richard?



Well, I'm not a fan of Bush, so that's good enough, right?


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2010)

No. I really did make it clear who I wanted this dialogue to be between. I stated it in the subject line AND the first post. Your contributions are valuable in other discussions, not so much here.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 22, 2010)

> We're still waiting for 'don't ask, don't tell' to be repealed, for chrissake.



Blame the Republicans in the Senate for that.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> > We're still waiting for 'don't ask, don't tell' to be repealed, for chrissake.
> 
> 
> 
> Blame the Republicans in the Senate for that.



Nick, gay rights is my civil rights issue of the moment (probably yours too).
Read some statements from activists-they do not believe the administration 
really got behind this.

I have never felt Obama to be as strongly supportive of gay rights as I would have expected him to be. I don't believe he sees it as an equivalent issue to racism.
I haven't always either, but in the past 5 years or so, I have.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 22, 2010)

Agreed, however it's astounding that 56 senators voted against it yesterday (really 55 - Harry Reid voted against it as a procedure so it can come up for vote again).

This isn't gay marriage even, it's stopping people from being discharged from the military just because they're gay!


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2010)

I know. Disgusting.

Not _because_ they're gay-because they actually SAY they're gay. If they'd just stay in the closet....


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> Agreed, however it's astounding that 56 senators voted against it yesterday (really 55 - Harry Reid voted against it as a procedure so it can come up for vote again).
> 
> This isn't gay marriage even, it's stopping people from being discharged from the military just because they're gay!



What's even more odd is that blocking a gay person from joining any group based on the fact that they are gay is against the law, but somehow in the military it's ok. I mean on one hand I see the point. Many service men wouldn't be comfortable with openly gay members in close quarters or in showers. I also feel that an openly gay person would be putting his life in danger from other service men that aren't as sympathetic to "gay rights". But, given the risk people should be allowed to serve no matter what. I mean we've all been in public showers either at the gym or in PE classes with people that were gay. It's not like it's a big deal. I even shared a room with a guy that was gay. It's a little off putting at first, but then you just get use to it. I mean I guess for a gay person it's kind of like the time I lived with a hot girl in college. At first you're all excited, then after a week you're like, "put some clothes on bitch".


----------



## rgames (Sep 22, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> No. I really did make it clear who I wanted this dialogue to be between. I stated it in the subject line AND the first post. Your contributions are valuable in other discussions, not so much here.



You seem to be implying that I'm not a liberal. I have many republican friends who disagree.

Do I need to get approved somewhere? Are you the authority? 

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > No. I really did make it clear who I wanted this dialogue to be between. I stated it in the subject line AND the first post. Your contributions are valuable in other discussions, not so much here.
> ...



rgames you always struck me as a Classical Liberal. I can respect that. I have more in common with the classical liberals than I have with the "mamby pamby pot smokin' hold hands and sing around a campfire quasi socialist" that passes for liberal today. :lol: 

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


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > No. I really did make it clear who I wanted this dialogue to be between. I stated it in the subject line AND the first post. Your contributions are valuable in other discussions, not so much here.
> ...



Richard- maybe I've mistaken you, but I've read many of your past posts (all of them cogent and well-spoken whether I agreed or not) and assumed you to be somewhat of a conservative/libertarian. If you tell me you're a liberal (please, no shilly-shallying here, have the vast majority of your votes over the past 20 years been for Dems?) then that's good enough for me.

I'm not 'the authority', but I did set up the premise and ask that it be respected.. I didn't want this to become a conservative/liberal debate.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2010)

josejherring @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed, however it's astounding that 56 senators voted against it yesterday (really 55 - Harry Reid voted against it as a procedure so it can come up for vote again).
> ...




Why do you put "gay rights" in quotes?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 22, 2010)

Richard is consistently conservative. His kand ain't welcome round heeyer.

(Seriously...a good debate is good for the digestion now and again. I disagree with Richard 95% of the time - meaning he's only right 5% of the time - but even if he doesn't understand reason, he does think. It's the knee-jerk imbeciles on Facebook I'm too immature to ignore who cause constipation.)


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> josejherring @ Wed Sep 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Sep 22 said:
> ...



Because I'm not the least bit interested in somebody's sexual preference. I don't think it has any bearing on anything. I think that if you're going to talk rights you talk about human rights. The question then becomes then, "should a person who has broken no laws, be discriminated against?", then the answer is simple, "no". By pushing "gay rights" you debase the human being and put him into a class. Classes are social structures and are subject to the current social whim of the times. The whole founding purpose of the US was to rid itself of the rigorous social classes of England where a person born into a social class had little chance of being anything else. 

Human rights are absolute imo. So proponents of "gay rights" are actually saying that gays are some subclass of human and they need some special rights. I feel the same way about any cause taken up for a particular class. 

If you truly want to be liberal you believe in freedom for all people. All people are born with the same rights and the government should step in on behalf of ensuring that all rights are upheld for all lawful people. I feel the same way about women's rights, blacks, latinos, asians, and whites. The first question that should be asked is, "are they human" the answer is "yes". Then all the politicizing of everything disappears because per the current state of the constitution, all men (human race) are created with equal rights under the law.

So if people keep talking about "gay rights" and "gay equality" they are missing the point.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 22, 2010)

> An isolated idea can't be ideological. Ideology is a system of coherent ideas - coherent with each other and coherent with the outward realities they address.



I think this is a truly silly argument, but it is important to understand something (if you don't): allowing companies to fail as a matter of principle is anything but an isolated idea - it's one of the absolute central premises of "free-market" capitalism in its most pure, neanderthal form.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2010)

So you disagreed with the initiative participated in by so many ( in which some gave their lives and many were beaten) that ended virtual apartheid against African Americans in this country in the 60's? These things rarely happen organically.


----------



## rgames (Sep 22, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> Richard- maybe I've mistaken you, but I've read many of your past posts (all of them cogent and well-spoken whether I agreed or not) and assumed you to be somewhat of a conservative/libertarian. If you tell me you're a liberal (please, no shilly-shallying here, have the vast majority of your votes over the past 20 years been for Dems?) then that's good enough for me.


I've always had trouble reconciling my political identity. I'm mostly fiscally conservative but solidly socially liberal. I tend to vote republican for president and democrat everywhere else.

So where does that put me? Confused, right?

You're right, though, that I'm probably not a liberal in the sense you're looking for. So I'll back out and leave you far-leftists to your fun 

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> So you disagreed with the initiative participated in by so many ( in which some gave their lives and many were beaten) that ended virtual apartheid against African Americans in this country in the 60's? These things rarely happen organically.



No. The true tragedy is that it got that far. If the government was really working, then as soon as blacks were declassified in the constitution and given full rights, the government should have stepped in and insured that that was actually happening. That a revolution had to occur was unfortunate. That the case wasn't brought to court immediately as soon as a black person was subject to discrimination as a violation of his constitutional rights was imo quite a blunder on the part of the government. A blunder that kind of comes back to the fact that we were still "black people" and not just people.


----------



## rgames (Sep 22, 2010)

OK I lied - one more comment.

Of course discriminating against gays is a civil rights issue and the proper thing to do is to make certain that there is no law that encroaches on their rights.

However, comparing it to the institutionalized racism that blacks suffered is a stretch. There is no "separate but equal" on the lawbooks for gays. That's not to say they don't face discrimination, but it's not state-sponsored discrimination. Still wrong, of course, but not really the same. Because it's not state-sponsored, it's harder to use the state to correct it.

Think about it this way: even though it was taken off the lawbooks, there's still racism. Changing a law is not the same as changing society's actions.

Also, gay marriage is not a federal issue - it's a state issue, so it's hard to fault Obama on that one. You get your marriage license with the state, not the feds.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2010)

It's a sore subject for me so forgive me if I lose my patience.

It all kind of started back in forth grade the first time I took one of those standardized test that you have to chose your ethnicity. It's like a slap in the face because I'm really of mixed ethnicity and for the first time I had to choose. America is so limited in it's ability to think about such things. And for the first time, I realized that this country saw me differently than my best friend sitting next me.


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2010)

But don't you see? The exact same thing is happening with gay people. That's why I think your somewhat utopian view ( which I essentially agree with ) that human rights should be applied to all Americans and happen organically...well, it didn't happen that way for people of color and it hasn't happened for gay people. There's been a whole lot of marching and organizing and lobbying just to get this far- and there's still a good ways to go.

I think I felt the way you felt some years ago-all that marching and carrying on-why couldn't they just do whatever they were going to do behind closed doors and shut up about it? *I* wasn't prejudiced. After talking to my gay friends over the past years, however, and seeing the legal rights they are denied and some of the basic legalized unfairnesses they experience (marriage, adoption, federal benefits, discriminatory state laws) I got more aware. 

I thought my President would be more sensitive to this situation, and have thus far been disappointed. He's said some of the right things, but the bully pulpit isn't enough-got to use the club too.

:::climbs off soapbox and gags self:::


----------



## José Herring (Sep 22, 2010)

NYC Composer @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> But don't you see? The exact same thing is happening with gay people. That's why I think your somewhat utopian view ( which I essentially agree with ) that human rights should be applied to all Americans and happen organically...well, it didn't happen that way for people of color and it hasn't happened for gay people. There's been a whole lot of marching and organizing and lobbying just to get this far- and there's still a good ways to go.
> 
> I think I felt the way you felt some years ago-all that marching and carrying on-why couldn't they just do whatever they were going to do behind closed doors and shut up about it? *I* wasn't prejudiced. After talking to my gay friends over the past years, however, and seeing the legal rights they are denied and some of the basic legalized unfairnesses they experience (marriage, adoption, federal benefits, discriminatory state laws) I got more aware.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with you. I am Utopian.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 22, 2010)

Jose on race I totally agree with the insult of the option box.
I grew up in an Italian neighborhood but come from a dual religion, extremly confusing Jewish/Italian family. The full bloods ( as we defined them ) fist fought in the alleys at funerals and other embarrassing forced get togethers.
I even survived the King Assasination riots in the 60's as a small child dodging bullets and molotov cocktails.
Ask a Jewish person what nationality they are and they say they're Jewish........Do they then hail from the land of Judea and Ben Hur...?
I was one confused kid, and then when I was 15 I had to get a straight gig washing dishes and had to call my Mom about the checkboxes................she went nuts.... :mrgreen: Why not have check boxes for religion then, that way I can check 2 and have a better chance.
My Grandfather actually lived in Sicily and his father who I never met was mixed race thanks to the Moors.
So should I check the African American box since his blood runs in my veins...?
No..............you are just a dark complected white guy that white gals like...... :mrgreen: 
Now days I fill in the other comment box and explain that I am a gay sicilian jew.
In that way I can confuse them and maybe hire a lawyer and sue them if they dont hire me...?
But I would make sure to get a good lawyer with a name like Silverbagel, Waffenschnifflitz or something.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 22, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgrGyR6EYbY


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 22, 2010)

chimuelo @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgrGyR6EYbY



ummm...? Funny ad, seen it many times, but...??


----------



## George Caplan (Sep 23, 2010)

chimuelo @ Wed Sep 22 said:


> Now days I fill in the other comment box and explain that I am a gay sicilian jew.



it would be the sicilian bit that worried me. >8o


----------



## Narval (Sep 23, 2010)

:D 

I bet he knows how to make an offer you can't turn down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch8uCOPbH7I


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 23, 2010)

Actually they were farmers. There are entire small towns in Southern Illinois like Marissa where they didn't even speak English until partiotism in WWI forced them to.
My Grandmother spoke English backwards but did fairly well.
I am not suffering from search overload but in 1880-1890 350,000 Italians came to the USA, mostly undocumented, hence the word " WOP." Without Papers.

Joke................
Why did so many Italians have the name Tony.........
WHen they boarded the American ships in Messina and Palermo they were asked their destinations and they all replied to New York.
So they stamped TO.N.Y on their foreheads......................

Ankyu...................Please............Stay Seated.


Meanwhile Back At The Ranch.................
Obamas UN speech was impressive. He looks and acts like a world leader. Perhaps he should get a post at the UN, as that is where he can sell me.
For some reason when he tours the USA he tries to be cool at College ceremonies, and acts like a Brotha' from the Hood when inner city tours are run, then has another face when he is Indiana, etc....?
If he'd go after our enemies like he does the GOP and Faux News he's get much more of his Independant voters back.


----------

