OBAMA Nation

[quote]orion wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
I think the thing Republicans are most jealous about is that we actually liked our candidate. I know all you “back to the gold standard” humps can’t believe your boy screwed the pooch so mightily that we’ve been sent back to an era of Keynesian economics. I say let’s give Barack’s notions of transparency and fair play their due.

That is so wrong, on so many levels, that I am actually impressed that you could fit that into one paragraph.

[/quote]

Are you sure you’re not this lift guy in disguise?

Your posts range from right on like this one and some others to convoluted joint popping stretches like in the other thread where you tried to equate some bonehead with her hand out to campaign promises about about low taxes.

Transparency? Oh boy. It’s going to be interesting to see the knots people have to tie themselves in during this presidency.

There are pundits from both sides on television right now saying that no one has any idea how this guy will govern. He campaigned for two years and no one knows how he will govern!

Now I’m not saying that’s any different than the politicians before him, but that’s the point. It isn’t going to be much different contrary to promises made. That’s already been made abundantly clear by his appointments so far. No one wanted Bush’s third term (the people voting for McCain probably believed he would be different from Bush), but I doubt anyone wanted Clinton the 3rd either.

If Barack’s cabinet choices so far are any indication, we’re getting pragmatists that are more centrist leaning. I had no illusions about Obama when I voted for him. If John McCain had been the same guy he was in 2000, I’d have probably voted for him. His selling out to the Republican base kept him from winning the election. If McCain had pursued the middle ground, he’d of won. I will say this, I was mightily impressed by his concession speech, as much as I was by Barack’s acceptance. Both made me proud to be an American.

[quote]Amused59 wrote:
If Barack’s cabinet choices so far are any indication, we’re getting pragmatists that are more centrist leaning. I had no illusions about Obama when I voted for him. If John McCain had been the same guy he was in 2000, I’d have probably voted for him. His selling out to the Republican base kept him from winning the election. If McCain had pursued the middle ground, he’d of won. I will say this, I was mightily impressed by his concession speech, as much as I was by Barack’s acceptance. Both made me proud to be an American. [/quote]

Uhhhhh… yeah.

[quote]Amused59 wrote:
If Barack’s cabinet choices so far are any indication, we’re getting pragmatists that are more centrist leaning. I had no illusions about Obama when I voted for him. If John McCain had been the same guy he was in 2000, I’d have probably voted for him. His selling out to the Republican base kept him from winning the election. If McCain had pursued the middle ground, he’d of won. I will say this, I was mightily impressed by his concession speech, as much as I was by Barack’s acceptance. Both made me proud to be an American. [/quote]

I thought you’d moved on to BB.com, where the smart people are and there’s less gay porn.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
I think the thing Republicans are most jealous about is that we actually liked our candidate. I know all you “back to the gold standard” humps can’t believe your boy screwed the pooch so mightily that we’ve been sent back to an era of Keynesian economics. I say let’s give Barack’s notions of transparency and fair play their due.

That is so wrong, on so many levels, that I am actually impressed that you could fit that into one paragraph.

Are you sure you’re not this lift guy in disguise?

Your posts range from right on like this one and some others to convoluted joint popping stretches like in the other thread where you tried to equate some bonehead with her hand out to campaign promises about about low taxes.[/quote]

Hmmm. Socket puppetry?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
I think the thing Republicans are most jealous about is that we actually liked our candidate. I know all you “back to the gold standard” humps can’t believe your boy screwed the pooch so mightily that we’ve been sent back to an era of Keynesian economics. I say let’s give Barack’s notions of transparency and fair play their due.

That is so wrong, on so many levels, that I am actually impressed that you could fit that into one paragraph.

Are you sure you’re not this lift guy in disguise?

Your posts range from right on like this one and some others to convoluted joint popping stretches like in the other thread where you tried to equate some bonehead with her hand out to campaign promises about about low taxes.[/quote]

Which bonehead held her hand out?

It was implicit in her statement that SHE would pay her mortgage and SHE would pay for gas.

She just imagined that it would be easier to do that under Obama. Whether that is right or wrong, that is a reason to vote that seems to be perfectly legitimate for most republicans.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
If Barack’s cabinet choices so far are any indication, we’re getting pragmatists that are more centrist leaning. I had no illusions about Obama when I voted for him. If John McCain had been the same guy he was in 2000, I’d have probably voted for him. His selling out to the Republican base kept him from winning the election. If McCain had pursued the middle ground, he’d of won. I will say this, I was mightily impressed by his concession speech, as much as I was by Barack’s acceptance. Both made me proud to be an American.

I thought you’d moved on to BB.com, where the smart people are and there’s less gay porn. [/quote]

yeah, I was thinking about making the move, and then I heard you teased some unstable bodybuilder into committing suicide on their site. Besides, I just dress this place up so well.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:It’s also hilarious how all out liberal democrats think some how Obama is the long awaited return of the messiah.

I think it’s funny that Republicans have to tell themselves that people voted for Obama because they have some kind of messianic fantasy when what really happened was they saw what a wreckless reactionary McCain is and decided maybe that’s not what we need right now.

But, whatever it takes to make yourself feel good.
[/quote]
I think it’s funny you took me giving someone a hard time about generalizing and you didn’t even see it. I am also not a Republican. Google Obama and Messiah you would be surprised.

[quote]Amused59 wrote:
If Barack’s cabinet choices so far are any indication, we’re getting pragmatists that are more centrist leaning. I had no illusions about Obama when I voted for him. If John McCain had been the same guy he was in 2000, I’d have probably voted for him. His selling out to the Republican base kept him from winning the election. If McCain had pursued the middle ground, he’d of won. I will say this, I was mightily impressed by his concession speech, as much as I was by Barack’s acceptance. Both made me proud to be an American. [/quote]

Neither pragmatists nor centrist leaning, maybe from a far left view they are centrist. And a pragmatists uses the information given to solve problems, not ignore the information to create them, which most of the people he is brining in have done in their careers.

and he was not open in his campaigns he tried to to hide who he had been in the Il senate as much as possible.

I do hope he does well, but let’s at least be honest that his campaign was never about his political career, it was an ad to sell who he claimed he could be.

Every candidate in the history of the United States with the exception of Washington has done the same.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I do hope he does well, but let’s at least be honest that his campaign was never about his political career, it was an ad to sell who he claimed he could be.

Every candidate in the history of the United States with the exception of Washington has done the same.[/quote]

Yes but most previous presidents had a voting record to look at as well. Obama in the US senate voted mostly present, and in the state senate his voting record was absolutely nothing like the person he ran as, but no one took the time to look into this.

You’re right politicians are liars.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
SSC wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
All these people that were cheering on Bush while he wrecked their country, are now worried.

Perhaps they would have preferred McCain to finish the job?

Location: Belgium

foreigners thinking they understand american politics.

sigh.

The only thing worse than a fereigner failing to understand American politics is an American failing to understand American politics.

I have absolutely no idea how some conservatives’ brains are so screwed up that they can object to Obama because “he could ruin our country!” when the Bush administration JUST GOT FINISHED ruining our country, and not see the disconnect there.

Because it wasn’t the Bush administration, it was years of failed politics from both sides,

people have a problem with obama because he compaigned as a democrat but previously lived his whole political life as a socialist activist, something cuts against the very grain of what America is. And with the puppet masters in house there is quick avenue to do a lot of unrepealable damage.

I think it’s hilarious how most of the Republicans around here are quick to forecast and can magically predict how Obama is going to turn the US into this heinous world to live in, even thought most of his policies probably won’t even pass. But then, when the economy of the last eight years are pointed out, they quickly dismiss it as “failed politics from both sides.” That pretty much means objectivism, which means you’re a stubborn, ignorant tool who can only see things in black and white.

“Something cuts against the very grain of what America is” - Guess what that is? Removing bipartisanship from our country. Hypocrite.

It’s also hilarious how all out liberal democrats think some how Obama is the long awaited return of the messiah.

I can generalize to its pretty easy.

I have this funny feeling the reason the economy is so bad off right now has more to do with individual choices and corporate corruption then anything the government did. The bail out bad idea…now they are helping hurt the economy, but everyone that lives in a house they can’t afford and has maxed out credit cards they are the problem not an administration.
[/quote]

Free markets don’t emerge ex nihilo like Athena from Zeus’ brow, they are created and regulated explicitly and purposefully by government action. To pretend that government has no role in corporate corruption and the individual choices we are allowed to make is at best disingenuous and at worst ignorant. What’s the difference between the countries on opposite ends of the international scale of economic freedom? The answer is simply differing levels of government intervention.

The cause of our current economic woes is NOT, as some would have you believe, poor minorities buying houses they couldn’t afford (since obviously minorities are the universal conservative scapegoat). Massive government deregulation of the banks (and poor regulation), the greater availability of credit, and changing financial structures–like the ability of banks and investment banks to merge laid the groundwork for all this years ago. Sadly a lot of conservatives (Bush, McCain) and some liberals, (including Obama)saw this coming, but of course noone wanted to stop it because the whole govt is cheek to jowl with their investment banking buddies on wall street (and the others wanted to pander to future homeowners). The attempt of the elites to pass the buck for this crisis down to the average joe on the street is pathetic (and conservative efforts to blame minorities specifically are even worse). If greed is the primary motivator of capitalist economies, how can we be mad when people act with greed as their motivation? Instead we need to–gasp–put government regulations in place to make sure greed doesn’t outstrip what’s good for the economy and the American people. Greed is NOT always good. We’re not Gordon Gecko. The massive greed of bankers is ignored to pass the buck to homeowners. And then they get a bailout. Awesome. Who’s bailing out the American homeowner?

Pure capitalists would say that a capitalist society should punish risk, and those homeowners who were greedy should lose their homes, and we should allow banks to collapse. This is like economic sanctions against Iraq–hurts the people, but affects the elites not at all. We would throw thousands into the street and the economy would collapse while those responsible would get away scott free. We can’t afford to take on the risk of a capitalist society without adequate regulation because the risk is too great–we run the chance of total economic collapse, which needed to be averted via government intervention. Had we had adequate controls in place initially, this bailout wouldn’t have been necessary.

And yes, there’s adequate blame to go around to smear wall street, the pubs, the crats, the “homeowners”, Shaka Zulu, and all of us too for good measure.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I voted for Bush and McCain…I hope Obama turns out to be the best president since Lincoln.

Good man. Every patriotic American should feel this way.

[/quote]

Seriously. That is a great post. We should all be hoping for the best from Obama despite our misgivings.

[quote]
Free markets don’t emerge ex nihilo like Athena from Zeus’ brow, they are created and regulated explicitly and purposefully by government action.[/quote]

I disagree, before government even existed free market was present. A nomad that trade deer skin or whatever for I don?t know a spice is conducting free market. I agree to place all the blame on society is wrong there is a lot of corruption, but we as a nation have allowed it to happen. Government regulations are required, but no amount of regulating can change the fact that people are going to try and take advantage of a given situation.

If someone offers you a house that is 1 million dollars but at a 5% variable interest rate people will take it because of the status living in a million dollar home brings. Then when they can’t afford the payments because interest has jumped to 10 or 20% they complain. I’m sorry, but I have spent the last several years saving every penny I can to buy the home I want. I for one do not want to pay for people to get a free pass. Government/Wall Street/Bank corruption is a huge factor, but the people taking these ridiculous loans are also to blame.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

I do hope he does well, but let’s at least be honest that his campaign was never about his political career, it was an ad to sell who he claimed he could be.

Every candidate in the history of the United States with the exception of Washington has done the same.

Yes but most previous presidents had a voting record to look at as well. Obama in the US senate voted mostly present, and in the state senate his voting record was absolutely nothing like the person he ran as, but no one took the time to look into this.

You’re right politicians are liars. [/quote]

A voting record is important, but it really doesn’t matter. The given situation we as a nation are in and the current influences on the decision maker will drive the decisions being made. Look at the ever popular Patriot Act or Congress declaring war in Iraq. Today neither would pass as easily as they did, but times were a lot different earlier in the decade.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:

I do hope he does well, but let’s at least be honest that his campaign was never about his political career, it was an ad to sell who he claimed he could be.

Every candidate in the history of the United States with the exception of Washington has done the same.

Yes but most previous presidents had a voting record to look at as well. Obama in the US senate voted mostly present, and in the state senate his voting record was absolutely nothing like the person he ran as, but no one took the time to look into this.

You’re right politicians are liars.

A voting record is important, but it really doesn’t matter. The given situation we as a nation are in and the current influences on the decision maker will drive the decisions being made. Look at the ever popular Patriot Act or Congress declaring war in Iraq. Today neither would pass as easily as they did, but times were a lot different earlier in the decade.[/quote]

Just curious if he’ll cut the strings and be a real boy though.

[quote]valiance. wrote:

Free markets don’t emerge ex nihilo like Athena from Zeus’ brow, they are created and regulated explicitly and purposefully by government action.
[/quote]

That is a dangerous idea right there and a wrong one.

It can easily be demonstrated that trade not only exists in societies that hardly have tribal structures, trade also flourished in the Mediterranean long before any political power could enforce any rules in that area.

The same is true for the Hanse and it can also be demonstrated that governments codified laws that were created as market customs like the Roman market rules of the Aediles that would later become European trade and civil law.

So yes, markets are a sort of spontaneous order, a emergent pattern if you will and they not only precede governments but often without trade the emergence of a government would be impossible.

Ja, because we needed governments to get together and trade surpluses, because who would have told us, if not the anointed ones.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Yes but most previous presidents had a voting record to look at as well. Obama in the US senate voted mostly present, and in the state senate his voting record was absolutely nothing like the person he ran as, but no one took the time to look into this.
[/quote]

You can’t vote ‘present’ in the Senate. You vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’, or you don’t vote. You can see all of Obama’s votes at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/

Especially in the last year, he didn’t vote much. But he didn’t vote ‘present’ in the US Senate.

[quote]orion wrote:
It can easily be demonstrated that trade not only exists in societies that hardly have tribal structures, trade also flourished in the Mediterranean long before any political power could enforce any rules in that area.
[/quote]

I would actually like to find out more about this. There has clearly been trade since the stone age, so there was clearly some sort of primitive market. It also seems pretty clear that you could only have a free exchange if both parties had roughly equal power.

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
orion wrote:
It can easily be demonstrated that trade not only exists in societies that hardly have tribal structures, trade also flourished in the Mediterranean long before any political power could enforce any rules in that area.

I would actually like to find out more about this. There has clearly been trade since the stone age, so there was clearly some sort of primitive market. It also seems pretty clear that you could only have a free exchange if both parties had roughly equal power.[/quote]

I do not know where that equal power thing comes from, thgis is pure game theory.

Co-operation simply pays off in the long run. Also, even in the neolithicum the trade routes stretched far beyond any area that was controlled by one tribe.

This is about the Hallstatt culture that lived off of salt trade.

There is evidence though that they started long before 1000 BC.

In fact they may have staetrted as early as 7000 years ago.