One guy in West Hollywood does something over the top, and you think that pretty much sums up every liberal, Democrat, and/or Obama supporter in America?
So, political opinions aside, which is worse -- hanging Palin in effigy or plotting to kill Obama? Turns out there are nut jobs all over the place. That's not news. Now if y'all will excuse me, I'm going to light some candles and sacrifice some goats to Joe Biden.
Yes, there are total radical nuts on both ends of the spectrum for sure! But if you look on average the left has far more people out on the fringe. If you don't believe it just look up the crime statistics for the protesters at the DNC and at the RNC. Far more protesters against the RNC commited crimes and caused a LOT more damage than the protesters at the DNC. Look how many people made pieces of so-called "art" depicting Pres Bush having horrible things done to him. I'm not saying it doesn't happen on both side, I'm just saying the left tends to go way out there too often.
I'm not about to get into a pissing contest about frequency vs. amplitude. I prefer to stick to relevant issues and facts. Like the fact that a survey of economists (funded by Scott Adams, no less) showed a significant majority of them felt that Obama as President would be better for the economy than McCain. I'll let the armchair economists throw out their crap about trickle-down and socialism. That rhetoric is the main reason political discussions end up going nowhere. Show me facts, studies... not isolated cases. There are isolated cases on both sides of every issue. Until we've examined all isolated cases (and thus, conducted a proper formal study), we're all just blowing hot air, and I'm sick of it.
This topic wasn't about the presidential election or which candidate to vote for though. This was more of a sociological comment. I have no problems talking about the issues, but this was kind of a side topic. We can debate the issues all we want, you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change your mind.
I believe Sen. Obama wishes to impose his socialist view on us and that is not what I feel our country was founded on. I also beleive it is a step in the wrong direction. Yes, Sen. Obama stands for "change" but if you change a diaper and take a **** one off then replace with another babies **** diaper, that isn't a change for the better.
I also believe Sen. Obama will take us a step in the wrong direction with race relations. I believe in TRUE equallity and with this single quote from Sen. Obama I truely believe he does not.
"When dispossessed peoples appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal."
That was in an interview where he was speaking on the civil rights movement and how it didn't go far enough in that it should have and I quote SEn Obama AGAIN, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." This is not the kind of thinking I want in the most powerful office in the country.
Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts, he said. You know the institution just isnt structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to local school districts, and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.
PuroFreak:
We can debate the issues all we want, you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change your mind.
In that case, why would either of us want to debate the issues at all? Actually, I don't want to debate the issues. Debating is pointless exercise about scoring rhetorical points and giving your supporters a stiffy. I'm interested in having a conversation about the issues with people who are genuinely interested in having a conversation, but I'd rather poke my eyes out than have a debate.
Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts, he said. You know the institution just isnt structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to local school districts, and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.
PuroFreak:
We can debate the issues all we want, you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change your mind.
In that case, why would either of us want to debate the issues at all? Actually, I don't want to debate the issues. Debating is pointless exercise about scoring rhetorical points and giving your supporters a stiffy. I'm interested in having a conversation about the issues with people who are genuinely interested in having a conversation, but I'd rather poke my eyes out than have a debate.
I am just curious what the first part of this comment was about? Not being a smart ass, just don't get what you mean by the other quote you posted.
I was just wondering if they were more to your liking, since they disagree with the sentence or 2 you quoted from Sen. Obama. (What's the source for those, btw?)
No they really weren't because they didn't really disagree with those quotes, they said that those things needed to be done, but the quotes you posted just said that the courts weren't the way to go about it. Another quote from the same interview reads
"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.
Its not that he doesn't believe in "redistributive change" it's that he doesn't believe the courts can do it. And my source for that was a Fox News piece but you can find the same story on CNN and MSNBC.
Sorry. I misread your post with the original quotes. I thought your concern was that a Pres. Obama would use the courts to impose "socialism."
If we're back to redistribution, my stance on that remains the same: there isn't a non-redistribution candidate (or party) in this race. (Not with any chance of winning, anyway.) You can have one kind of redistribution, or you can have the other kind of redistribution. No redistribution is not an available option.
But my belief is that redistribution based on race, is racism and would do more to hurt relations in this country that are fragile already. I honestly don't see how McCain is for aditional redistribution. I don't see how tax cuts for people making more money is redistribution. That is just taking less of the money they made, not giving them the money we make...
I honestly don't see how McCain is for aditional redistribution. I don't see how tax cuts for people making more money is redistribution. That is just taking less of the money they made, not giving them the money we make...
i see what you are saying. I tend to agree with this. however, McCain DID vote FOR the Bailout. ... how is that NOT redistribution?
Yes he did, that was a political move, but at the time had he voted against the Bail Out it would have been political suicide. Look at the uproar when the House voted against it and the stock market plunged. I don't agree with the Bail Out bill, but the knee jerk reaction from the country would have been very negative. But the fact that McCain voted for the bail out isn't a reason so support Obama because he voted for it too. If you look at the numbers, a LOT more Republicans voted against the package that Democrats. Just look at Obama's record, he is the most FAR left leaning liberal sen. that has ever held office. It's the usual tax and spend mentallity only amplified...
Nearly everything any government does is a form of wealth redistribution. McCain favors huge subsidies for the nuclear energy industry; that's redistribution (and interference in the free markets). He favors huge defense spending; that's redistribution. His health care proposal is a redistribution. Etc.
Aside from those kinds of specifics, I think there's a larger problem with anti-redistribution arguments. They all seem to view the process in two stages completely distinct and mutually exclusive steps: people build and possess wealth, gov't comes along and takes it, then gives it to someone else.
There's a completely artificial exclusion of gov't from step 1, as if gov't were a mugger. That is, as if gov't contributed nothing to the creation and possession of wealth in the first place, it just came along afterwards and took some away. That's clearly not the case. People don't build and possess wealth; people with the aid of gov't build and possess wealth. Nobody in any modern nation-state anywhere in the world creates wealth without gov't help. It is therefore appropriate for gov't to reclaim some of that wealth for larger purposes; it is not something artificially tacked on after the wealth has been created; it is not mugging anybody.
So no matter what specific policy example you want to talk about, it simply isn't appropriate to talk as if gov't is just taking wealth it had no part in the creation of, which is fundamental to anti-redistribution arguments.
I see a major flaw in your argument, in that the government didn't start out with the money. The goverment was formed by people, citizens, who put their money into building the origional government. Thats where we get the line: "government of the people and for the people." The government has taken the money and spread it around since the begining of our great nation. I just don't feel that gives them the right to take as much as they want when they want and spread it around to people who do less.
I'm sick of seeing my tax dollars go to welfare reciepiants who we arrest on a daily basis for possesion of narcotics and DWI's. When you see someone pay for their groceries with food stamps then pull out cash for their cigarettes then drive to the liquor store in their brand new car it tends to piss me off. Do you honestly think Sen. Obama will support any kind of measure to require drug screenings for anyone who applies for welfare? Because I PROMISE you if we did that, the amount of money handed out would drop dramaticly. But oh no! We can't infringe on their civil liberties!!! Just tell me where in ANY government document it says we are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a fat 20 sack???
Oh, and for the record, if you don't think Sen. Obama has socialist views...
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia."
That is not the kind of radicalism I want in the Oval Office of our nation.
I've been following this thread for days now, and it only confirms my opinion that people who are constantly talking in extremes eventually lose all credibility and will never convince a single person of their views.
I'm not sure which you are calling an "extreme" but if it was the part about the welfare reciepiants driving new cars and loading up on liquor and cigarettes, I will asure you that it is not rare extreme cases where that happens. I've seen it in person on a daily basis and it is very sad. They don't have the money to buy milk and formula for their children so they have the government pay for it, then they go and buy a fifth of Jack.
I just don't feel that gives them the right to take as much as they want when they want and spread it around to people who do less.
I'm sick of seeing my tax dollars go to welfare reciepiants who we arrest on a daily basis for possesion of narcotics and DWI's. When you see someone pay for their groceries with food stamps then pull out cash for their cigarettes then drive to the liquor store in their brand new car it tends to piss me off. Do you honestly think Sen. Obama will support any kind of measure to require drug screenings for anyone who applies for welfare? Because I PROMISE you if we did that, the amount of money handed out would drop dramaticly. But oh no! We can't infringe on their civil liberties!!! Just tell me where in ANY government document it says we are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a fat 20 sack???
interesting thought.
here is my problem with your argument.
I am against the war on drugs. Dont get me wrong, i dont do drugs. Im not stupid enough to. I feel that "the war on drugs" is a giant waste of money and time. plus, since i am a huge proponent of personal responsibility i feel that if you ARE dumb enough to do drugs you deserve the consequences. so if you take your argument from my point of view then it doesnt matter.... of course, if you went the logical extreme and took the ENTIRE SITUATION at my point of view it would ALL be a moot point because the government would not have a social system like welfare; they would have a work program. (im not talking about those who cannot work like the handicapped so dont get bent out of shape) If you want government money, you work for it. You may not like it but work is how you make money. Period.
if everyone LOVED to work all the time we wouldnt have to get paid every day to show up. I love my job, but if they stopped paying me i would stop showing up.
You are missing my point Kuz. I'm saying if a person has money for drugs and alcohol and tobacco, then they could spend that money on food instead. Not talking about drugs being right or wrong. That isn't the issue, the issue is they have money for drugs then they have the money to take care of themselves...
Haha Well I don't see the war on drugs as a waste of time simply because most dealers don't target people old enough to make mature educated decisions. They target school children. I know I see things like this differently than you do because I'm a new father and I'm a Law Enforcement officer. The war on drugs also is a war on violent crime. Without it the drug lords would run rampant here like the cartels in Juarez Mexico.
yeah... i hear that being a parent changes everything.
strange... when i DID do drugs i was older (early 20s). when i was younger (middle school to high school ) i was never even approached. I never made it available to myself. My parents did a good job. I just was stupid later.
Well we are pretty much the same age and I don't remember being approached with it either, but kids today are being approached as young 10. That is too young to know how to make an intelligent choise. Hell when they cook up a fresh batch of Strawberry Meth that looks like Pop Rocks or a strawberry slushy, of course kids are going to be attracted to it. Its becoming more of a problem for younger kids than I would have EVERY imagined.
Comments
(Also, you're aware that plenty of equally over the top examples exist among conservatives, right?)
i have yet to see (in person) one of any democrat. If i did they too would be former friends.
So, political opinions aside, which is worse -- hanging Palin in effigy or plotting to kill Obama? Turns out there are nut jobs all over the place. That's not news. Now if y'all will excuse me, I'm going to light some candles and sacrifice some goats to Joe Biden.
I believe Sen. Obama wishes to impose his socialist view on us and that is not what I feel our country was founded on. I also beleive it is a step in the wrong direction. Yes, Sen. Obama stands for "change" but if you change a diaper and take a **** one off then replace with another babies **** diaper, that isn't a change for the better.
I also believe Sen. Obama will take us a step in the wrong direction with race relations. I believe in TRUE equallity and with this single quote from Sen. Obama I truely believe he does not.
"When dispossessed peoples appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal."
That was in an interview where he was speaking on the civil rights movement and how it didn't go far enough in that it should have and I quote SEn Obama AGAIN, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." This is not the kind of thinking I want in the most powerful office in the country.
In that case, why would either of us want to debate the issues at all? Actually, I don't want to debate the issues. Debating is pointless exercise about scoring rhetorical points and giving your supporters a stiffy. I'm interested in having a conversation about the issues with people who are genuinely interested in having a conversation, but I'd rather poke my eyes out than have a debate.
I am just curious what the first part of this comment was about? Not being a smart ass, just don't get what you mean by the other quote you posted.
"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.
Its not that he doesn't believe in "redistributive change" it's that he doesn't believe the courts can do it. And my source for that was a Fox News piece but you can find the same story on CNN and MSNBC.
If we're back to redistribution, my stance on that remains the same: there isn't a non-redistribution candidate (or party) in this race. (Not with any chance of winning, anyway.) You can have one kind of redistribution, or you can have the other kind of redistribution. No redistribution is not an available option.
Aside from those kinds of specifics, I think there's a larger problem with anti-redistribution arguments. They all seem to view the process in two stages completely distinct and mutually exclusive steps: people build and possess wealth, gov't comes along and takes it, then gives it to someone else.
There's a completely artificial exclusion of gov't from step 1, as if gov't were a mugger. That is, as if gov't contributed nothing to the creation and possession of wealth in the first place, it just came along afterwards and took some away. That's clearly not the case. People don't build and possess wealth; people with the aid of gov't build and possess wealth. Nobody in any modern nation-state anywhere in the world creates wealth without gov't help. It is therefore appropriate for gov't to reclaim some of that wealth for larger purposes; it is not something artificially tacked on after the wealth has been created; it is not mugging anybody.
So no matter what specific policy example you want to talk about, it simply isn't appropriate to talk as if gov't is just taking wealth it had no part in the creation of, which is fundamental to anti-redistribution arguments.
I'm sick of seeing my tax dollars go to welfare reciepiants who we arrest on a daily basis for possesion of narcotics and DWI's. When you see someone pay for their groceries with food stamps then pull out cash for their cigarettes then drive to the liquor store in their brand new car it tends to piss me off. Do you honestly think Sen. Obama will support any kind of measure to require drug screenings for anyone who applies for welfare? Because I PROMISE you if we did that, the amount of money handed out would drop dramaticly. But oh no! We can't infringe on their civil liberties!!! Just tell me where in ANY government document it says we are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a fat 20 sack???
Oh, and for the record, if you don't think Sen. Obama has socialist views...
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia."
That is not the kind of radicalism I want in the Oval Office of our nation.
here is my problem with your argument.
I am against the war on drugs. Dont get me wrong, i dont do drugs. Im not stupid enough to. I feel that "the war on drugs" is a giant waste of money and time. plus, since i am a huge proponent of personal responsibility i feel that if you ARE dumb enough to do drugs you deserve the consequences. so if you take your argument from my point of view then it doesnt matter....
of course, if you went the logical extreme and took the ENTIRE SITUATION at my point of view it would ALL be a moot point because the government would not have a social system like welfare; they would have a work program. (im not talking about those who cannot work like the handicapped so dont get bent out of shape) If you want government money, you work for it. You may not like it but work is how you make money. Period.
if everyone LOVED to work all the time we wouldnt have to get paid every day to show up. I love my job, but if they stopped paying me i would stop showing up.
thats what you get for staying up too late.
strange... when i DID do drugs i was older (early 20s). when i was younger (middle school to high school ) i was never even approached. I never made it available to myself. My parents did a good job. I just was stupid later.