Why do you like Obama?

[crimson5pheonix]

Amen, It's funny how the people advocating wealth redistribution are usually the ones on the receiving end.

Funny how idiots make assumptions.

I've never in my life taken money from any wealth distribution program. I, and my family before me, has always worked - and struggled - to make ends meet.

And mind you, there are many wealthy social liberals, just as there are many wealthy people in quasi-socialist countries. In fact, the only wealthy people who do not agree with wealth distribution are the greedy ones.

Another thing you have to understand about wealth is that unless it is inherited, it is hardly the result of one person's actions. The wealthy CEO is NOTHING without his less-than-wealthy subordinates. So why should he get to buy that gold toilet seat while they can barely pay the rent?

It's about justice.

And here's another common misconception, the CEO does nothing and didn't do anything to get to where s/he is. There are executives who didn't do crap to get to where they are, but their rarer than you think. Most executives start out as employees at the bottom rung of the company but make their way to the top. My grandfather ended his career at Exxon as a high level executive but started out as a worker on the Alaska pipeline. He helped build the pipeline himself, then proceeded to work his way through the company until he got into his high position. So don't start spouting about justice for the 20-30 year old worker being mistreated by someone who in all likelihood used to have his/her job.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Amen, It's funny how the people advocating wealth redistribution are usually the ones on the receiving end.

Funny how idiots make assumptions.

I've never in my life taken money from any wealth distribution program. I, and my family before me, has always worked - and struggled - to make ends meet.

And mind you, there are many wealthy social liberals, just as there are many wealthy people in quasi-socialist countries. In fact, the only wealthy people who do not agree with wealth distribution are the greedy ones.

Another thing you have to understand about wealth is that unless it is inherited, it is hardly the result of one person's actions. The wealthy CEO is NOTHING without his less-than-wealthy subordinates. So why should he get to buy that gold toilet seat while they can barely pay the rent?

It's about justice.

geez you love to continue things dont you. I can't convince you you can't convince me lol so last post cause I gotta go work.
Not wanting your wealth to go to others isn't greedy if your blessed with 40 video games its not unreasonable to want to keep them all and not give 15 of them to others just because they only have 5.

Wealth is the result of a persons actions granted some are in more fortuneate beginings than others. That ceo cfo cio vp whatever they got that doctorate or masters they separated themselves from a field of other canidates etc they provided something that a company needed and hence the position of power.

The mindset of taking from the rich and giving to these poor souls who can't pay rent is mystifying to me. It's not justice it's stealing.
Side note how can these so called poor not afford rent you can work any retail job and make it much less if you go to school and make something for yourself.

EDIT: good point crimson
my granddad started out in the airforce in korea, got an EE degree worked in the space program and became a regional manager of teledyne(something like that). So these CEOs do work to get there, its just many people are envious of them and there are cries of unfair.

 

[Brett Alex]

Again, it's an opinion. You don't have to mock me for it.

When you put an opinion that is as hard line and definitive as yours was out there, you should expect some challenge or resistance to it. If you don't want that, then don't tell anyone in a public open forum, or just agree with everyone else and don't have one. Otherwise, its likely someones going to disagree with you.

And do you seriously not see anything good about the welfare system?

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
And here's another common misconception, the CEO does nothing and didn't do anything to get to where s/he is. There are executives who didn't do crap to get to where they are, but their rarer than you think. Most executives start out as employees at the bottom rung of the company but make their way to the top. My grandfather ended his career at Exxon as a high level executive but started out as a worker on the Alaska pipeline. He helped build the pipeline himself, then proceeded to work his way through the company until he got into his high position. So don't start spouting about justice for the 20-30 year old worker being mistreated by someone who in all likelihood used to have his/her job.

Well put. A common misconception among people with few job skills and litle earning potential is that CEOs were just like them and then, though luck, became CEOs. I'm old enough to have seen the people who have made good - they are the people working the eighty hour work weeks, not the people who did just enough to get by and went home promptly at five but somehow won the CEO lottery.

People like Obama because he promises to take money from others and give it to them. And he will. Even if most of the money gets used up within, and sidetracked by, the government itself, at least those evil rich people will be punished. You'll have free health care, free education, free housing.

Of course, be prepared to give up your guns, your automobiles, your violent video games and movies. If the government has to raise us, support us, make decisions for us, then we can't complain if it treats us like children.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

SNIP
Of course, be prepared to give up your guns, your automobiles, your violent video games and movies. If the government has to raise us, support us, make decisions for us, then we can't complain if it treats us like children.

hooray for someone who sees what's going to happen! The biggest problem with left wing thinking is that they want to be a nanny state. Why should we make personal decisions when someone who's obviously more qualified can make all of our decisions for us?

Leftists think they can spend my money better than I can and I don't like that.

 

[Godheval]

Amen, It's funny how the people advocating wealth redistribution are usually the ones on the receiving end.

Funny how idiots make assumptions.

I've never in my life taken money from any wealth distribution program. I, and my family before me, has always worked - and struggled - to make ends meet.

And mind you, there are many wealthy social liberals, just as there are many wealthy people in quasi-socialist countries. In fact, the only wealthy people who do not agree with wealth distribution are the greedy ones.

Another thing you have to understand about wealth is that unless it is inherited, it is hardly the result of one person's actions. The wealthy CEO is NOTHING without his less-than-wealthy subordinates. So why should he get to buy that gold toilet seat while they can barely pay the rent?

It's about justice.

And here's another common misconception, the CEO does nothing and didn't do anything to get to where s/he is. There are executives who didn't do crap to get to where they are, but their rarer than you think. Most executives start out as employees at the bottom rung of the company but make their way to the top. My grandfather ended his career at Exxon as a high level executive but started out as a worker on the Alaska pipeline. He helped build the pipeline himself, then proceeded to work his way through the company until he got into his high position. So don't start spouting about justice for the 20-30 year old worker being mistreated by someone who in all likelihood used to have his/her job.

Who has this common misconception? I don't think anyone would argue that a CEO did not do considerable work and/or exercise considerable skill to get to that position. I certainly did not. I said - please READ - that the CEO did not do it on their OWN, a point that cannot be argued unless said CEO is the ONLY employee of the company.

 

[Serge Drago]

You're right this thread is about Obama. If you want to leave his connections with people that lock others into a church and set fire to it out of the equation than be my guest. The fact still remains that Obama has a few, less than commendable people surrounding him. But to say I have no case at all against this Marxist is idiotic. Obama wants to raise taxes on the very people that make jobs in this country. When the cost of business goes up the owners decide to cut their costs and the people in their employ are just another business expense on the balance sheet. Obama's policies, if accepted by a potentially liberal congress, will cost jobs across the board.

Uh...did Raila Odinga himself lock people up in a church and burn them? Did he sanction it? What evidence do you have of any of this? Oh, none? Of course not, because that would be logical. And even if you had a photograph of Odinga burning the people himself, does that mean that Obama - who met the man a few times at most - supported those actions? I am certain that if such evidence had emerged, the visit would've went quite differently.

John McCain honors and respects G. Gordon Liddy, Watergate conspirator, and a man who in recent years has said on his radio show that federal agents should be shot in the head. Should we hold McCain accountable for his associations with Liddy? I don't support McCain, but I'm not making this case, either, because it's ABSURD.

Funny how after a quick and nonsensical statement, you abandon your case for Obama's associations, then move on to other "reasons" you don't support him. You make a few more statements out of hand, with no basis in fact, and with a clear misunderstanding of policy. Then you call him a Marxist. Do you even know what a Marxist is? Have you ever read the Manifesto? Probably not. To even call Obama a socialist would be inaccurate, but it'd be a lot closer than communist, which is what you are calling him. You are one ridiculous individual.

Who knows what your real reasons are for being against Obama, but what is clear is that you are going to be against him regardless of what the facts are. That makes you ignorant, and also someone that no one with any sense should be listening to...

Obama is not perfect. He has and will continue to make mistakes. But as for a reason - to the original poster - for why we can vote for him in spite of those mistakes, is because HE acknowledges mistakes he has made, and his own CAPACITY for making mistakes. He, in turn, would LISTEN to those who disagree with him. That is an admirable quality.

You ask me to drop the argument and continue with how this thread is about Obama, I comply and then you mock me for it. While Odinga may have not locked the church himself, it was his supporters and he has not denounced the actions, nor have I heard Obama doing it. You than claim I haven't read the Communist Manifesto because I called Obama a Marxist. Obama is a Marxist because he proposes high income taxes on the wealthy while tax breaks on the rest of the populous, 'from each according to his ability to each according to their need.' Look up that quote and you will find it written smack dab in the middle of Karl Marx's ten points for a perfect communistic society. He is also a Marxist for wanting to expand the the government's control of the everyday activities of the people.

 

[Godheval]

SNIP
Of course, be prepared to give up your guns, your automobiles, your violent video games and movies. If the government has to raise us, support us, make decisions for us, then we can't complain if it treats us like children.

hooray for someone who sees what's going to happen! The biggest problem with left wing thinking is that they want to be a nanny state. Why should we make personal decisions when someone who's obviously more qualified can make all of our decisions for us?

Leftists think they can spend my money better than I can and I don't like that.

What a bunch of nonsense. No one's calling for a Nanny government. "Leftists" as you like to call us, call for OVERSIGHT, so that corporations do not have carte blanche authority to run roughshod over regular people. Corporations are unique in that they have all the rights of individuals but ZERO accountability. Government officials do not have this luxury. See the debate between myself and Bronzebow.

Not wanting your wealth to go to others isn't greedy if your blessed with 40 video games its not unreasonable to want to keep them all and not give 15 of them to others just because they only have 5.

Your reasoning is...astounding. We are not talking about VIDEO GAMES, but the essentials of life, like food, housing, medicine, education. It is not that we necessarily begrudge the wealthy slob his golden toilet seat, just that we want to make sure everyone else is EATING, first. That is not unreasonable.

Furthermore, distribution of wealth is not stealing. Everyone pays into a system that provides for them in some way. The military that "protects" you, the government officials, the infrastructure - SOMEONE has to pay for that, and we all contribute - each according to their ability to do so. Part of maintaining a healthy society is making sure that everyone is accounted for, from the CEO to the lowest tier worker.

Granted, there are flaws in every system, and there is room for exploitation - whether you're rich, poor, or in-between, and that is where OVERSIGHT again becomes necessary. And that role falls to the government, which you same "rightists" would propose we weaken...

I'm done.

 

[Shivari]

Of course, be prepared to give up your guns,

Actually, if Obama were to do that (he won't), I'd love the guy.

And why do I prefer Obama? I agree with him on issues more, however, I wish Hillary had won the primaries. Oh, and OP, Obama isn't an evil terrorist. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Honestly, I was going to vote for Obama but now that the economy is going to shit and banks are being nationalized, it would just seem insane for me to vote for a socialist candidate. Prior to the economy tanking, I viewed Obama as a great embassador for the country with some idealistic and harmless socialistic plans.

Now that the economy has tanked, his role with ACORN and his personal involvment in dropping loaning standard (which led to this whole mess) makes me believe that he follows on his ideals without regards to the long term consequences.

Addittionally, the nationalization of banks is the beginning of a potential slippery socialist slope that Obama would happily run down, grabbing energy, infrastructure, insurance, and any other institutions one by one as they all tanked due to this oncoming recession.

I know there are a lot of Europeans who have no problems with the bank nationalization and feel it is the obvious step but Britain's continual market manipulation has made their economy more susceptable than ours to this entire economic crisis. Pumping money into the banking market is only going to increase inflation and extend the recession for longer. Everybody just needs to take the huge hit for the next 2 years and deal with it, the current banks need to die and new ones without caustic loans on their books will have to be formed to fill the consumer void.

Arguably, I am not too happy with McCain's proposed solutions for the economy but both are candidates are going to have bad ideas since they have to appeal to the very same people that contributed to this problem, THE CONSUMER.

So, the balance has shifted one way, so I feel I have to try to teeter it in the other way... after this whole economic thing and the deplorable response by congress I am probably going to become a Liberatarian after this election.

 

[Godheval]

'from each according to his ability to each according to their need.'

That is in the Manifesto, certainly, and as a standalone statement, there isn't much wrong with it. Abiding by this view does not make one a Marxist. It makes you one with a sense of fairness and justice.

 

[Serge Drago]

That is in the Manifesto, certainly, and as a standalone statement, there isn't much wrong with it. Abiding by this view does not make one a Marxist. It makes you one with a sense of fairness and justice.

There is nothing wrong when somebody donates or gives his time, money, or property to someone else. My problem lies in the government coming in and taking, forcefully if need be, from the people who earned and handing it to the people that don't. There are cases of people who are down on their luck and have to take welfare to get them back on their feet, I would have no problem helping them out and getting them to become productive again. My problem lies in the people that have made welfare recipient their profession.

 

[The Lyre]

You'll have free health care, free education, free housing.

Of course, be prepared to give up your guns, your automobiles, your violent video games and movies. If the government has to raise us, support us, make decisions for us, then we can't complain if it treats us like children.

Pretty much why I would support Obama - frankly, I'd sacrifice violent video games and films if it meant that;

-When I contract a serious illness, I won't die.

-That I wouldn't have to work solidly for a year or two to have any hope of affording a flat (Of course, this is all relative to where I live in the UK).

-That I wouldn't be repaying student loans for the foreseeable future.

If giving up your guns, your Jeep, and Saw 5 are reasons for not wanting a better country, there is something wrong with your morals.

Of course, as I said, I live in the UK, therefore I'm sure that my opinion is fairly unwanted - just try to remember that you're also voting in a man that will affect the entire world, not just you as an individual.

Another reason to vote for Obama is that he isn't Republican - i.e., the party that seems to have initiated war in the Middle East and destroyed the dollar.

Leftists think they can spend my money better than I can and I don't like that.

To be honest, if we're discriminating now, then I'd rather a 'Leftist' spend my money on improving the average quality of life of citizens, rather than a 'Rightist' telling me it is okay to say "Fuck the rest of the world", invest heavily in fossil fuels, fire my gun randomly into the air a few times, and perhaps spit on a wandering homeless gent for disgracing me with his presence.

 

[yzzlthtz]

But of course this is fine because of "Small Government", which amounts to deregulation of business and industry, which results in the raping of our planet, the outsourcing of American Jobs, poison in our air and water, and many tax loopholes.
McCain wants to solve the energy crisis and global warming by building 25 nuclear power plants. Which is like letting the smoke out of your kitchen so that you can properly assemble a neutron bomb in your refrigerator.

Nuclear technologies are dangerous, not just because a plant meltdown will make a tri-county area uninhabitable, but because nuclear waste is easily refined to make nuclear weapons. 1 nuclear plant = 1 more security threat. 25 nuclear plants....

And plus, who is going to want a nuclear plant in their state? Nobody, that's who. Not for years now. It's a failed policy already, and yet McCain touts it like it's the most ingenious idea since the bread cutter

You are completely mistaken. Firstly, more people die every year as a result of particulate air pollution than as a result of nuclear power during its entire lifetime. Secondly, have you ever heard of Three Mile Island? A partial core meltdown. Result: Absolutely no deaths whatsoever, and safety standards have only improved since then. Thirdly, and this is a statistic I love: Coal-fired nuclear power plants produce 100 times the radiation that nuclear reactors do, and coal waste contains so many nuclear materials that there is more energy in the nuclear waste than is liberated through combustion of the coal. I'd be willing to provide citations as well, because I'm on course to argue for the proposition in a debate of the College Historical Society of Trinity College, Dublin tomorrow, and it includes all of these arguments prominently.

(By the way, the Chernobyl disaster wasn't even a proper meltdown. It was a steam explosion caused by gross incompetence and human error in a reactor based on unshielded 1950s technology. And by the way, thanks to Sayvara and co. for their arguments in the "Nuclear Power [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.69274]" thread on this forum; they helped a lot in planning out my speech!)

you said "Coal Fired Nuclear Plants"
i don't think you meant to.

interesting that you didn't have a good argument for the "refine-able for use in weapons" bit...
just what do you do with accumulating nuclear waste? convince me of a fail-proof storage facility. one that protects even future civilizations.

still, no one wants wants a nuclear plant in their county. and we are sitting on the most radical advancement in solar technology (solar battery technology); it just needs implementation.
why spend time and money on potentially dangerous energy when safe, clean, energies are available for implementation right now?
our cars could be moving power plants. our houses could power the grid. the renewable forces of wind, the sun, geothermal energy, could feed the grid constantly. and we'd have 0 waste, MORE jobs, and a no worry about terrorists making off with bomb ingredients.

 

[yzzlthtz]

Honestly, I was going to vote for Obama but now that the economy is going to shit and banks are being nationalized, it would just seem insane for me to vote for a socialist candidate. Prior to the economy tanking, I viewed Obama as a great embassador for the country with some idealistic and harmless socialistic plans.

Now that the economy has tanked, his role with ACORN and his personal involvment in dropping loaning standard (which led to this whole mess) makes me believe that he follows on his ideals without regards to the long term consequences.

Addittionally, the nationalization of banks is the beginning of a potential slippery socialist slope that Obama would happily run down, grabbing energy, infrastructure, insurance, and any other institutions one by one as they all tanked due to this oncoming recession.

I know there are a lot of Europeans who have no problems with the bank nationalization and feel it is the obvious step but Britain's continual market manipulation has made their economy more susceptable than ours to this entire economic crisis. Pumping money into the banking market is only going to increase inflation and extend the recession for longer. Everybody just needs to take the huge hit for the next 2 years and deal with it, the current banks need to die and new ones without caustic loans on their books will have to be formed to fill the consumer void.

Arguably, I am not too happy with McCain's proposed solutions for the economy but both are candidates are going to have bad ideas since they have to appeal to the very same people that contributed to this problem, THE CONSUMER.

So, the balance has shifted one way, so I feel I have to try to teeter it in the other way... after this whole economic thing and the deplorable response by congress I am probably going to become a Liberatarian after this election.

Uhh...you do realize that the economy tanked because of 8 years of conservative policies and spending....

 

[yzzlthtz]

I don't know, when he visited Europe and met with various world leaders?

Say we get attacked while either of them is in office. Who is more likely to respond quickly without having to ask the UN for approval? Who us more likely wait until we have UN approval? The message McCain sends out is that we aren't going to ask for permission to come find you and kill you.

Funny that you advocate for a candidate based on his "intimidation factor", and that your entire analysis of foreign policy seems based on being afraid yourself.

"What if we're attacked?!"

The irony is staggering.

First of all, thats not my only reason for voting for McCain, it is just ONE. Call me paranoid, but I really don't want another 9/11.

Don't want another 9/11? probably shouldn't vote for McCain then.

 

[TomNook]

I don't know, when he visited Europe and met with various world leaders?

Say we get attacked while either of them is in office. Who is more likely to respond quickly without having to ask the UN for approval? Who us more likely wait until we have UN approval? The message McCain sends out is that we aren't going to ask for permission to come find you and kill you.

Funny that you advocate for a candidate based on his "intimidation factor", and that your entire analysis of foreign policy seems based on being afraid yourself.

"What if we're attacked?!"

The irony is staggering.

First of all, thats not my only reason for voting for McCain, it is just ONE. Call me paranoid, but I really don't want another 9/11.

Don't want another 9/11? probably shouldn't vote for McCain then.

Wow, your long list of reasons and truly convincing argument have swayed me to the side of naive change mongering.

 

[mrnelsby]

I don't hate him because he's black, I never even said that. He's been judged because he is friends with Ayers, a man who bombed the pentagon and claimed he and the 9/11 bombers didn't do enough. He even announced his candidacy for senate at his house. he's friends with Farakan, head of the nation of islam, a terrorist organization. His pastor is racist, he hates whites, and prays death to America, and Obama is a deacon in his church, so he knows his pastor and his views...I don't give a shit that he's black...he could be whiter than McCain's hair I'd still think the man was evil...and no offense to you morning blues, but when the government decides to take over things that should be based on a free market, that's socialism...and that may fly in Canada but this is America, a country built upon the free market

See, here's the problem: you don't want a real conversation.

If you wanted a real conversation you'd read up on some of this stuff for ten minutes instead of just repeating it indiscriminately.

There's no point in saying anything good about Obama because you will respond with "Yeah, but what about ? Doesn't that kinda eclipse his good aspects?"

There's no point in saying anything bad about Obama because you will also respond with "Yeah, but what about ? Isn't that a lot worse than the thing you mentioned?"

-- Alex

Yup, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. This is a veiled attempt at a dialog when in fact the original poster's outlandish claim that he doesn't know a single good thing about Obama makes it clear that he's just a blind party follower.

 

[ffxfriek]

simple....i dont. hes pro choice...and many many other things...and he makes absolutely no sense watso ever