[quote]lixy wrote:
vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
[i]“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”
-Barack Obama[/i]
Yes, but luckily I watched him making this statement… so I know that taking this snippet out of context as you have is not the reality of the situation.
He was describing how countries like China and India would not be okay with us telling them to cut down their usage of energy when we are the highest per capita users of energy on the planet.
His comments had absolutely nothing to do with suggesting any loss of freedoms or anything of that ilk. He is suggesting that the US lead by example, in terms of working to change our oil addiction, creating new industries, complete with jobs and technology exports, and that other countries would follow our lead.
Care to try again? How is Obama proposing to restrict freedoms?
Yeah, but he was against it, before he was for it, or forgot he was against it, or was lying when he said he was against it, or is lying now to pander to the 25%'ers…
…sometimes straight talk can be so confusing.
[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I think that the term “collectivist” is what can best describe the Obama. Either way, he apparantly doesn’t put a whole lot of stock in individual freedom.
Freedom?
You think he’s out to curtail personal freedoms?
Yes, I do. I believe that his political ideoligy is one that seeks to restrict the individual in the “better” interests of the state.
[i]“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”
-Barack Obama[/i]
That, uh…isn’t curtailing individual freedoms at all?[/quote]
Uh, yes…I already, in one of my posts above, outlined why I believe he (Obama the great that is) seeks to restrict individual freedoms in the better interests of the state. Please respond to that post.
[quote]vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
In short, Obama is a gigantic socialist at heart. His policies would, as all socialist policies do, seek to suppress the individual in the “better interests” of the state. If you can’t see this, than your just not paying attention…
Okay, so you are changing your statement.
If you aren’t careful you’ll step into an arena where your comments can be reasonably debated. First, let’s get beyond the “suppress the individual” and look at the concept at heart here.[/quote]
Isn’t the “suppression of the individual” the concept at heart?
No, not really. I’m talking about the individuals right to make individual choices, irregardless of what a governing body has decided, so long as those choices don’t cause harm or suffering to others.
Sure, but how about when I’m forced to fund a public school system that I don’t believe offers anywhere near an education as good as the catholic school in my district? Should I be forced to pay double (i.e.-the public and the parochial) that of a resident who simply sends his or her child to the public school only? This is an example of the state limiting choice through taxation. Vouchers would solve this problem though by increasing the individuals options for education, with the money already paid.
One of the few functions of the federal government which is actually given to it constitutionally, so…yes.
Nope.
Sure, however the US really needs to reconsider it’s insane drug laws.
The problem w/r/t liberalism in general, is that it’s rarely interested in actual results. All too often it’s the “intention of the initiative” that counts in their eyes more than the actual results.
Infrastructure, another of the functions given to the federal government constitutionally, so…yes again.
Our education system was much better before the federal department of education became involved. And again, I’d like to see more personal choices available to the individual w/r/t the education of their children. Remember, we’re talking about the individual freedom of choice for the individual.
Very difficult when recruiters are being kicked out of schools and assholes like murtha and kerry publicly denigrate our fighting men and women. The left wingers in this country would have a SHIT FIT if the military was portrayed in the same positive light, and with the same sense of patriotism as was common in WWII.
Very true, I agree.
Not all social programs are, nor should they be, government run initiatives. Which social programs do you think the government runs well?
But if it walks like a collectivist, talks like a collectivist, and spends like a collectivist…then he/she will suppress individual choices like a collectivist.
I do, free market capitalism, a severely limited federal government, and representatives who support individual freedoms with a passion. Too bad there won’t be a candidate that fits well into this category who has a shot at the presidency this year. Which of course, sucks.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
[i]“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”
-Barack Obama[/i]
Yes, but luckily I watched him making this statement… so I know that taking this snippet out of context as you have is not the reality of the situation.
He was describing how countries like China and India would not be okay with us telling them to cut down their usage of energy when we are the highest per capita users of energy on the planet.
His comments had absolutely nothing to do with suggesting any loss of freedoms or anything of that ilk. He is suggesting that the US lead by example, in terms of working to change our oil addiction, creating new industries, complete with jobs and technology exports, and that other countries would follow our lead.
Care to try again? How is Obama proposing to restrict freedoms?
By using cap and trade to restrict our energy usage. His statement means exactly what is seems.
I assume McCain’s support for cap and trade means something different than Obama’s support of cap and trade.
[/quote]
McCain is also wrong about it but I do not see McCain hiking taxes on oil companies.
[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I think that the term “collectivist” is what can best describe the Obama. Either way, he apparantly doesn’t put a whole lot of stock in individual freedom.
Freedom?
You think he’s out to curtail personal freedoms?
Yes, I do. I believe that his political ideoligy is one that seeks to restrict the individual in the “better” interests of the state.
[i]“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”
-Barack Obama[/i]
That, uh…isn’t curtailing individual freedoms at all?[/quote]
Telling people what they can eat and how warm they have to keep their house doesn’t infringe on their personal freedoms? Unreal!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Majin wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Majin wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
(2) The people have to see that gov’t is NOT the answer.
The problem is that the idea of government doing ‘something’ is heavily ingrained in the American psyche. Just like crime is easier than calculus, violence is easier to do than observe a moral code.
What’s your answer, personal responsibility?
Morality has to catch up with science. Our morality is a slave-morality, the morality of the poor and disenfranchised. Who else would think that alms and using a government club to rob the productive was good? Who else would want guaranteed healthcare, guaranteed retirement, a guaranteed education, a guaranteed safety net of foodstamps and rent subsidies? Serfs and slaves.
Until the vast majority accepts and understands that you should get JUST EXACTLY what you have earned and deserve, and that robbing someone is a ticket to hell on earth, then this insanity will continue.
You’re missing one important point. Most of those who ‘earned it’ already HAD the the kind of upbringing benefits that allowed them to attain their high status. The same kind of benefits the very affluent are eternally trying to deny everyone else.
They also seem to be very insecure about holding onto their power by suppressing others. Could it be because they know that they are not special in their ability to ‘earn and deserve’?
Statistically speaking, the most ‘moral’(least crime, poverty and conflicts while more economic stability and a thriving middle class) nations are the ones with most effective social programs.
To protect themselves, the rich created the mixed economy. In a free market, they would lose their positions of power to the more able and competent. They thus created a system that drains the middle class to fund benefits for the poor. Government power is a way to stifle competition. Thus you see the erosion of the middle class in this country.
Government handouts are mostly designed to rob the middle class and keep the poor from rioting and pillaging.
The most stable country on earth btw is Switzerland. It also happens to have the highest ratio of financial to fixed assets. There’s a reason for that.[/quote]
I agree. But you never elaborated on how this renunciation of ‘slave mentality’ would manifest itself. Maybe an example of your ideal basic setup to achieve a more egalitarian situation?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
I think that the term “collectivist” is what can best describe the Obama. Either way, he apparantly doesn’t put a whole lot of stock in individual freedom.
Freedom?
You think he’s out to curtail personal freedoms?
Yes, I do. I believe that his political ideoligy is one that seeks to restrict the individual in the “better” interests of the state.
[i]“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”
-Barack Obama[/i]
That, uh…isn’t curtailing individual freedoms at all?
Telling people what they can eat and how warm they have to keep their house doesn’t infringe on their personal freedoms? Unreal![/quote]
No, it doesn’t.
(Not to mention he isn’t “telling”)
Telling people what they can eat and how warm they have to keep their house doesn’t infringe on their personal freedoms? Unreal!
No, it doesn’t.
[/quote]
What the hell are you smoking? You are so disconnected with reality I cannot take you seriously. At least trolls like HH are amusing. You are just sad.
[quote]
(Not to mention he isn’t “telling”)[/quote]
Yes, we all understand Obama is a politician, he is not going to stop us from eating how we want, he will blame other countries.
Telling people what they can eat and how warm they have to keep their house doesn’t infringe on their personal freedoms? Unreal!
No, it doesn’t.
What the hell are you smoking? You are so disconnected with reality I cannot take you seriously. At least trolls like HH are amusing. You are just sad.
(Not to mention he isn’t “telling”)
Yes, we all understand Obama is a politician, he is not going to stop us from eating how we want, he will blame other countries.
[/quote]
Hmmm… so he isn’t telling you to do anything, and isn’t saying he’s going to do anything about it (legislate/actually remove rights) but that didn’t stop you from going balls out with I’m “disconnected from reality”.
hmm…you related to the other tool in the shed, Mick28?
Hmmm… so he isn’t telling you to do anything, and isn’t saying he’s going to do anything about it (legislate/actually remove rights) but that didn’t stop you from going balls out with I’m “disconnected from reality”.
[/quote]
No, it means he would never have the political power to eliminate those rights. But Zap is correct in being concerned about a politician who wants to take those rights away.
Hmmm… so he isn’t telling you to do anything, and isn’t saying he’s going to do anything about it (legislate/actually remove rights) but that didn’t stop you from going balls out with I’m “disconnected from reality”.
No, it means he would never have the political power to eliminate those rights. But Zap is correct in being concerned about a politician who wants to take those rights away.
I would prefer not to live in an Orwellian world.[/quote]
Eliminating those rights not really the point of the speech. He isn’t actually suggesting an elimination of driving suvs (he’ll be in one), and keeping your house at 72 degrees (temperature of the whitehouse).
This is just Zap, and perhaps you pretending to not get the larger point of leading by example.
[quote]100meters wrote:
The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:
Hmmm… so he isn’t telling you to do anything, and isn’t saying he’s going to do anything about it (legislate/actually remove rights) but that didn’t stop you from going balls out with I’m “disconnected from reality”.
No, it means he would never have the political power to eliminate those rights. But Zap is correct in being concerned about a politician who wants to take those rights away.
I would prefer not to live in an Orwellian world.
Eliminating those rights not really the point of the speech. He isn’t actually suggesting an elimination of driving suvs (he’ll be in one), and keeping your house at 72 degrees (temperature of the whitehouse).
[/quote]
Of course he will enjoy those things at our expense but he is too concerned about what other countries think about it so he will make energy more expensive to the average American with his cap and trade and his raising taxes on energy companies.
[quote]
This is just Zap, and perhaps you pretending to not get the larger point of leading by example.[/quote]
It is shameful that the man expects us to make sacrifices when he refuses to lead by example. I cannot believe you actually agree!
It is shameful that the man expects us to make sacrifices when he refuses to lead by example. I cannot believe you actually agree![/quote]
It was accepted lomg ago, by the Left, that the United States was too wealthy in relation to the rest of the world. They viewed this as destabilizing and proceeded to ship our wealth overseas. Anyone protesting was denounced as greedy, selfish, and a brute.
This is why forced altruism is at the core of the Left, especially on college campuses. America was the healthy victim and how dare it want to not provide a transfusion to the ‘sick’ and ‘poor’?!?
Trouble is: the victim is now all but drained. The vampire Left has drained us dry and is now sceaming over the corpse, in the person of Barack Obama. And McCain is too stupid IMO to reverse this descent into destitude and destruction.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:
Hmmm… so he isn’t telling you to do anything, and isn’t saying he’s going to do anything about it (legislate/actually remove rights) but that didn’t stop you from going balls out with I’m “disconnected from reality”.
No, it means he would never have the political power to eliminate those rights. But Zap is correct in being concerned about a politician who wants to take those rights away.
I would prefer not to live in an Orwellian world.
Eliminating those rights not really the point of the speech. He isn’t actually suggesting an elimination of driving suvs (he’ll be in one), and keeping your house at 72 degrees (temperature of the whitehouse).
Of course he will enjoy those things at our expense but he is too concerned about what other countries think about it so he will make energy more expensive to the average American with his cap and trade and his raising taxes on energy companies.
This is just Zap, and perhaps you pretending to not get the larger point of leading by example.
It is shameful that the man expects us to make sacrifices when he refuses to lead by example. I cannot believe you actually agree![/quote]
So, yeah you were fakin just a bit.
Hmmm… so he isn’t telling you to do anything, and isn’t saying he’s going to do anything about it (legislate/actually remove rights) but that didn’t stop you from going balls out with I’m “disconnected from reality”.
No, it means he would never have the political power to eliminate those rights. But Zap is correct in being concerned about a politician who wants to take those rights away.
I would prefer not to live in an Orwellian world.
Eliminating those rights not really the point of the speech. He isn’t actually suggesting an elimination of driving suvs (he’ll be in one), and keeping your house at 72 degrees (temperature of the whitehouse).
Of course he will enjoy those things at our expense but he is too concerned about what other countries think about it so he will make energy more expensive to the average American with his cap and trade and his raising taxes on energy companies.
This is just Zap, and perhaps you pretending to not get the larger point of leading by example.
It is shameful that the man expects us to make sacrifices when he refuses to lead by example. I cannot believe you actually agree!
So, yeah you were fakin just a bit.
[/quote]
Hmmm… so he isn’t telling you to do anything, and isn’t saying he’s going to do anything about it (legislate/actually remove rights) but that didn’t stop you from going balls out with I’m “disconnected from reality”.
No, it means he would never have the political power to eliminate those rights. But Zap is correct in being concerned about a politician who wants to take those rights away.
I would prefer not to live in an Orwellian world.
Eliminating those rights not really the point of the speech. He isn’t actually suggesting an elimination of driving suvs (he’ll be in one), and keeping your house at 72 degrees (temperature of the whitehouse).
Of course he will enjoy those things at our expense but he is too concerned about what other countries think about it so he will make energy more expensive to the average American with his cap and trade and his raising taxes on energy companies.
This is just Zap, and perhaps you pretending to not get the larger point of leading by example.
It is shameful that the man expects us to make sacrifices when he refuses to lead by example. I cannot believe you actually agree!
So, yeah you were fakin just a bit.
You don’t even know what you post, do you?[/quote]
Yeah, I do.
You basically admit he isn’t actually going to remove any rights. You pretended to be incredulous before when I suggested he wasn’t going to.
Hmmm… so he isn’t telling you to do anything, and isn’t saying he’s going to do anything about it (legislate/actually remove rights) but that didn’t stop you from going balls out with I’m “disconnected from reality”.
No, it means he would never have the political power to eliminate those rights. But Zap is correct in being concerned about a politician who wants to take those rights away.
I would prefer not to live in an Orwellian world.
Eliminating those rights not really the point of the speech. He isn’t actually suggesting an elimination of driving suvs (he’ll be in one), and keeping your house at 72 degrees (temperature of the whitehouse).
Of course he will enjoy those things at our expense but he is too concerned about what other countries think about it so he will make energy more expensive to the average American with his cap and trade and his raising taxes on energy companies.
This is just Zap, and perhaps you pretending to not get the larger point of leading by example.
It is shameful that the man expects us to make sacrifices when he refuses to lead by example. I cannot believe you actually agree!
So, yeah you were fakin just a bit.
You don’t even know what you post, do you?
Yeah, I do.
You basically admit he isn’t actually going to remove any rights. You pretended to be incredulous before when I suggested he wasn’t going to.
So now you’re left with hypocrisy.[/quote]
You really are a clueless hack. The man wants top raise energy costs. The man does not want the average person to be able to afford to drive an SUV or cool his home. He will do this by raising taxes and other costs on energy. No one expects him to actually outlaw SUV’s or air conditioning because he wants to enjoy them. He just doesn’t want the peasants to have access.
Hmmm… so he isn’t telling you to do anything, and isn’t saying he’s going to do anything about it (legislate/actually remove rights) but that didn’t stop you from going balls out with I’m “disconnected from reality”.
No, it means he would never have the political power to eliminate those rights. But Zap is correct in being concerned about a politician who wants to take those rights away.
I would prefer not to live in an Orwellian world.
Eliminating those rights not really the point of the speech. He isn’t actually suggesting an elimination of driving suvs (he’ll be in one), and keeping your house at 72 degrees (temperature of the whitehouse).
Of course he will enjoy those things at our expense but he is too concerned about what other countries think about it so he will make energy more expensive to the average American with his cap and trade and his raising taxes on energy companies.
This is just Zap, and perhaps you pretending to not get the larger point of leading by example.
It is shameful that the man expects us to make sacrifices when he refuses to lead by example. I cannot believe you actually agree!
So, yeah you were fakin just a bit.
You don’t even know what you post, do you?
Yeah, I do.
You basically admit he isn’t actually going to remove any rights. You pretended to be incredulous before when I suggested he wasn’t going to.
So now you’re left with hypocrisy.
You really are a clueless hack. The man wants top raise energy costs. The man does not want the average person to be able to afford to drive an SUV or cool his home. He will do this by raising taxes and other costs on energy. No one expects him to actually outlaw SUV’s or air conditioning because he wants to enjoy them. He just doesn’t want the peasants to have access. [/quote]
You are a fool. The average person can’t drive a SUV or cool his home now because of the price of gas/energy. That had nothing to do with Obama. And of course the plan is to reduce energy costs long term. There is no short term solution other than reduced demand. So we have to find alternatives…even McCain from May this year agreed with that, although recently he’s having trouble in the polls and has resorted to the “say anything to win” strategy…but I digress from my point, which was…oh, you’re a fool.
You are a fool. The average person can’t drive a SUV or cool his home now because of the price of gas/energy. That had nothing to do with Obama. And of course the plan is to reduce energy costs long term. There is no short term solution other than reduced demand. So we have to find alternatives…even McCain from May this year agreed with that, although recently he’s having trouble in the polls and has resorted to the “say anything to win” strategy…but I digress from my point, which was…oh, you’re a fool.[/quote]
A person’s SUV payment is often higher then their gas.
In fact right now because of the price of gas, what you pay for a used SUV is low enough you could probably save more then the difference in the cost of gas for a year. And you will be ahead by the time gas prices drop back to normal.
Anyway you obviously didn’t hear Obama talking about wanting gas prices to go up, but was preferring they went up more slowly:
And unfortunately you are one of many who do not understand energy at all.
There is no energy crises except that which was made by the government, and the politicians on Obama’s side.
These are the same people who said the 10 billion barrels available in Alaska will not have an effect on prices, but thought 75,000 a day that was going into the strategic reserve was important enough to stop.
You are a fool. The average person can’t drive a SUV or cool his home now because of the price of gas/energy.
[/quote]
Wrong, the average person can still do these things.
Wrong, he wants to increase costs. Cap and trade, higher taxes etc. He just didn’t want costs to increase this quickly.
[quote]
There is no short term solution other than reduced demand. So we have to find alternatives…even McCain from May this year agreed with that, although recently he’s having trouble in the polls and has resorted to the “say anything to win” strategy…but I digress from my point, which was…oh, you’re a fool.[/quote]
There is no short term solution because the Democrats have been blocking the necessary work for years. It will take years to make up for their foolishness. Obama wants to continue the foolishness and you will tell any lie to help him get elected.