Barack Obama has taken the US presidency, becoming the first black (well, 1/2 black) president in US history. Additionally, the democratic party picked up enough seats for a clear house majority. Thoughts?
Barack Obama Commander in Cheif I think that it's okay. Obama will be able to act fast as opposed to Mc (with all due respect - but 72's a *little* too much), IMO. The US is too large of a economy in a crisis to have slow-coming solutions - all things have to be desicive, strict and solid...
Barack Obama Commander in Cheif I have a major problem with Obama. He has seemingly no executive experience, a very naive view of the world, a plan to rob citizens if they make too much, among other things. He, nor McCain are qualified to run the country, IMO. Obama is an excellent speaker, but I simply don't agree with his beliefs at all and think he's the least qualified person the Democrats could've come up with. I'm not against trying to talk things out with rogue nations, but I have an issue with someone who wants to talk with people that have come out and said they want to destroy the US. I think he's well-inentioned, but I feel he's going to leave things wide open for some enemies to take another shot at us. Now, Obama wouldn't be a strict problem by and of himself. Congress is now going to be comprised of a stronger Democrat majority, which is a cause for concern because one party is going to run the show. Any time one party is running the show is a bad thing. The biggest concern I have with this is the Democrats idea to re-introduce the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". It mandates that radio broadcasts give equal time to both sides. Given that the printed media is Constitutionally exempt from this, I feel that it should extend to all forms of media, not be limited. It's a very bad law as it has a strong potential to shut down the Conservative viewpoint. Like it or not, shutting down an opposing view is a very bad road to go down. Oh, and BTW, I voted for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Candidate.
Barack Obama Commander in Cheif Arguing politics always gets a bit dicey. Keep in mind that I didn't vote for Obama or McCain if you choose to read on... What's a rogue nation? By definition, it's one who breaks away from international law, and acts unilaterally... like the way we did in Afghanistan. The way we have in Iraq. The way we are threatening to in Iran. Regime change is an illegitimate reason to go to war under international law. I'm not a big fan of Iran, but they have been on the receiving end of all the threats and posturing, not us. They are also 8+ years away from nuclear weapons from what our own intelligence agencies are telling us, even if they are perusing them, which our sources say no. Apparently they have no yellowcake uranium. The same goes for the UN weapons inspectors. Also, they are signees to the nuclear proliferation treaty, which we refuse to participate in. All of our international policy for the last 8 years has been centered around completely irrational Neo Conservatism. Before we invaded Iraq, there were no Al-Qaeda there. Now that we've invaded and completely destroyed the Iraqi's sovereignty, the country is swarming with them. On the surface this seems utterly foolish, why make your own enemies? But if you understand that the Neocons want to project US power into the whole world ala Rome, one begins to understand that the people need some kind of specific enemy to fight. In the 50's it was "communists". Now that they're an unfashionable foe, it's terrorism. If you compare the amount of people that have died in the last 10 years at the hands of "terrorists" vs state-sponsored terrorism, like CIA covert operations, I think you will be staggered at the sheer difference. One party has run the show for the last 8 years; the democratic "majority" wasn't strong enough to get around filibusters, and the Republicans have used it quite a lot. The president has also threatened to veto many times. Still, don't think I'm arguing for the Dems either. If anything, the strong majority they have now will take away their excuses for letting our liberties erode like the Grand Canyon. Please consider this... by their actions alone, ignoring political titles, do we even have a liberal party? To me, it seems more like right and further right with an extreme minority center and left. The "conservative" republicans have consistently voted for bigger government, less freedoms, unchecked military spending, etc. And the vote to bail out Wall Street was supported in more or less a 50/50 split of both parties. What's so conservative about them? These same people who called Obama a socialist are willing to hand out a trillion taxpayer dollars, completely unchecked and unguaranteed to private firms, and that's not socialism? What the hell is it then, exactly? Now, I've heard some conservative Christians argue that Bush was a good president(!!!) because he was technically opposed to abortion, gay marriage, etc. But if I recall, he is still president, and those things are still legal. So what good are those views? What benefit is it that he claims to be conservative? I think if anything, we need more regulation of our media, not less. We've allowed a media consolidation the likes of which is typically only seen in fascist regimes. In truth, 5 individuals hold the reigns of over 80% of our media nationwide, last I checked. It's probably an even larger percentage than that now. That means bias... lots of bias. It's hard to buy off the interests of 100,000 radio, newspaper and TV station operators. It's easy to buy 5. For example, ever watched Fox? The "No Spin Zone" is the single most biased source of [mis]information I have ever seen. And when's the last time you heard somebody in the "liberal media" (like CNN) or the "conservative media" (such as Fox) actually dissected a white house press release and do a little investigative journalism? No, they simply regurgitate it as-is, with no follow-up and no tough questions whatsoever. That's not news, that's propaganda. When Comedy Central is the only station that can openly speak out about current events, you know things are seriously F'ed up. Barr seemed like a good candidate to me as well. I've voted independent in every election I've participated in so far. [ot]And you know what? There is mysteriously a problem with my registration every time I show up to vote...[/ot]
Well, the "conservatives" really aren't IMO...at least by the way most of those with the alleged title go. It's just a way of blacklisting someone, at least that's the way it seems much of the time. I'm for as little government as necessary, and neither party is shy about doing so when they are in power. It's only a problem with the other side runs the show. I'm convinced that if Kerry or Gore did what Bush did, you'd just end up with the Republicans criticizing them. Secondly, I'm tired of Congress pinning everything on Bush. They like the power, but when things go to hell, well it's all Bush's fault. I'm not saying he and his administration didn't play a major role, but I find it very convienent that Congress gets away giving the okay and then pointing fingers and saying they didn't know when some of the things they point out where given to them. I mean, they don't know what they've voting on? C'mon...that's part of their job. However, yes, Bush has screwed up. He's not been able to repeatedly spell out the Iraq policy. Afgahnistan was probably legit, but we've fanned out from there and lost focus. Sure, we should go after AQ and work at stopping them, but only to a point. Homeland security? Uh, yeah, small government went out the window there, along with human rights. Views are part of it, but we also need to remember that the President is not a king. Yes, he's a leader, but there's the Legislative and Judicial branches to keep him in check. Oh, yes, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, the way the R & D's are going, it's as if they're one party like they started out as in the 1800's. As far as the fairness doctrine goes, let me try to clarify. It's not about the consolidation of the various media outlets, it's about the government attempting to tell media sources other than the printed media they are mandated to show everything. Given the Constitutional framing that keeps the government out of dictating what can and can't be printed, I don't see why the extention can't be connected to TV, Radio and Internet. The government has as much business controlling the media as it does wiretapping civilians without good reason. Now, I'm not defending bad journalism. Unfortunately, most people have been inundated with such things that they often don't realize it. Now, yes, there's always a bias, but I wonder how well people are taught to recognize that. As far as things Obama wants to do, I'm more likely to oppose it because I am for a little government as possible. I disagree with the notion that the gov decides how much money is too much. $250,000 does a lot more here in Indiana than it does out in California if I'm not mistaken. I don't agree with a notion that the government should tell people "you've made too much, so we're giving it away to this person." That's robbery and doesn't encourage people to get out there and try harder. Why try if you're going to get that money taken away. Sure, there are some greedy rich people, but that doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Secondly, it should be a person choice to donate, not the governments. Third, the government doesn't come across as the most efficient organization. Obama point #2: No executive experience. Hey, I don't mind that he has a relatively short political history. TBH, there's far too many folks in Washington that seem to forget that their office was in place for them to serve for a short while and then go home. Where I am concerned is that from what I understand he's not had executive experience. Now, this isn't something that can't be overcome, but it is a red flag to see someone come up without a history of running a business or a city. Point 3: Guns. He want's to remove the right to bear arms. That doesn't stop violent crime. Hell, there's a gun ban in Japan, and the mayor of Tokyo got shot in the subway. (Now, it was by some yakuza, but still...).
Believe it or not, I think that we agree more than we disagree in terms of politics. Believe me, I'm not siding with the Dems either. I'm just stating a fact; whenever there actually was enough pressure to make them get off their asses (e.g. rarely), the republicans blocked them. What I'm suggesting is that now that they have a real majority, they don't have that excuse any longer. My question is this: why attack Afghanistan at all? Al-Qaeda didn't even take responibility for 911, and to this day, we have zero intelligence linking Al-Qaeda with 911. That's right, zero. A lot of the checks and balances have been dissolved since 2002. The fact that Bush & co didn't even show up to congressional hearings they were summoned to time and time again shows the state of the union pretty clearly I think, especially since they are free men to this day. No rule of law for the ruling class, and 10,000,000 petty laws for the working class. Not only that, but we're supposed to shoulder the burden for both the very poor and the very rich. I mean, WTF already? Bush, Chenee and the rest of their Neocon cronies have basically run rampant since 2002, when everybody was thinking with their guts when they should have been thinking with their brains. The Patriot Act being a perfect case in point. And the last time the world saw an organization like the Department of Homeland Security, it was called the Gestapo. Recipe for disaster. Here here. The neocons executed the plans, the military industrial complex was overjoyed with the prospect of warring the world, and the dems were only too happy to go along for the ride. This in exchange for "campaign contributions", which IMO is 100% legalized bribery. And nothing more. It's best for them if there's two. Most of the time it seems they're merely arguing semantics and essentially making the same sets of bad decisions. Another case in point: Obama and McCain took almost identical standpoints on all the major issues during the campaign, yet one is considered "left" and one "right". More like right and further right. Until I read the thing, I'll withhold any commentary... these things tend to have a lot of fine print and loopholes. But let me clarify my own standpoint. The mainstream media in the US is totally worthless as a vehicle of free speech, pure and simple. Honestly, the only news sources I'm able to get any semblance of facts in context have been The Real News, Democracy Now, and Al Jazeera. True, very true. But personal opinion and contextual facts need to be clearly separated, or else you have yellow journalism. To me yellow journalism is like yellow snow -- worthless for human consumption. I totally agree that we need a smaller government... much smaller. Ours is bleeding us dry faster than barbers bled George Washington. And if we don't stop it, I imagine we'll have a similar outcome. On the other hand, if we are to downsize government, we have to downsize the military and related contracts. Having 400+ bases around the world does not make us safer, and it certainly doesn't benefit us here in the states. Neither mainstream candidate were willing to discuss this. Well, in fairness JFK was relatively wet behind the ears. As a result he made some big mistakes listening to some advisors with a huge agenda, a little incident called the Bay of Pigs for example. On the other hand, he personally averted what would have been the first Iraq war, and a few others besides. To this day he's considered one of the States' better presidents. Kennedy is actually a lot like Obama to be honest. Young, charismatic, and a minority -- yes, JFK was a freckle-faced, red-headed Irish Catholic, not very popular in many places -- and they were both considered underdogs. Both are eloquent speakers, and both were untrustworthy in their ways. Of course, time will judge Obama as to the caliber of his own character. As for me, I'm cautiously optimistic. If he does half of what he said he'd do (copycatting McCain rhetoric), we're totally screwed. Of course, if I had believed Obama was more than just a politician, I'd have voted for him. As for McCain... he clearly would have been Bush mark II. He even got an endorsment by Al-Qaeda, which is poetic justice, considering he called Obama a terrorist during his campaign. Al-Qaeda may be a straw-man enemy, but it's still pretty funny. When the gun ban in DC was repealed, violent crime took a massive nosedive almost immediately. Of course, to me, the right to bear arms doesn't mean much if we can't carry concealed weapons, or use high-caliber rounds.
I'm following AT a little more here, but i believe most, if not all of our governments problems stems from what Andrew Jackson did with political parties. (gave rise to democrats, which in turn brought about the republicans as a major party) Bipartisanship is the downfall of our government. More government, less government, in all honesty, it doesn't really seem to matter. Ether the government runs our lives our corporate America runs our lives, and nether one tells us what they are really doing. We can't just not having any government control, there just needs to be a balance between a free market and government regulation, deregulation caused our current situation. Taxes should be fair, its not about motivation to get out there and try to make something more of yourself, its not that simple nor easy. Really, even though people don't want to believe it, in some way or another, money = happiness. (in a sense that it makes life that much easier) Taxes shouldn't be simply based on gross income, yes, 250,000 here is not the same as 250,000 there, and then small business still get screwed in every respect, regardless. Taxes should be based on net income, not gross, for everyone, thats "fair". For right now though, i believe in this system, and i don't care who you are 250,000 is a lot of money, better than those trying to scrape by on 30,000 and getting taxed like no other, stupid. However, small business will still get screwed, my parents made around 200,000 for a couple years, but hardly profited any of that, most of it was soaked up in expenses, but the gov doesn't see any different, so they got taxes pretty hard. I just posted a video actually, it deals some what with corporate and government corruption, and lieing to the people. The problem with the media, aside from being told what they can and can't do, still comes down to money. What story is going to get more attention, what happened to Joe celebrity, or hey so and so politician is scamming you, or Bob CEO is poisoning this community.... I wrote in Mike Gravel, he wasn't on the ballet, nor was the independent party as they fell apart pretty much right before the election otherwise i would have voted straight independent...... --edit-- I forgot about gun control and some stuff. Obama's Inexperience i think is a good thing, all we see in out office are career politicians, what do they know about people and real life?? I don't believe experience is the end all, just because you have been doing it for umpteen years, doesn't make you an expert, you can do something your whole life but not really put anything into it and still be as green as the day you started. I don't believe in his gun control policy, but this is just a mirror of other problems in our government. Where something is to generalized, it should be more specific, where something is to specific, it should be more general. How many gun crimes do you hear of where the person involved is using a rifle?? Ban handguns, ban automatic rifles, ban submachine guns, but to take away from the sportsman.
I heartily agree. I don't know how many times I've made this point in political discussions, but I'll try to make it again here: Too much government control is communism. Too much corporate control is fascism. We need to resist both, and walk the fine line between them, if we truly want to be free and still have a society. Taxes ... the rich really don't pay any due to numerous intentional loopholes, even if they go out of their way to open and honest about taxes they still pay proportionately much less. The the middle class pay the lion's share of taxes in the US. And of course, the very poor are on the receiving end of our taxes (see: Welfare, foodstamps), as are the very rich (see: Wallstreet Bailout, GM bailout, etc). America technically accounts for an obscene amount of the wealth worldwide, but in reality only a handful of individuals hold all that wealth, while the majority of us live paycheck to paycheck. But while fair taxation is always impossible -- since with great wealth comes great power, and the ability to change tax laws in one's own favor -- our largest looming problem right now is not tax, but inflation. Taxes are much more straightforward in terms of one's ability to gauge its impact on the working man. On the other hand, inflation is like a silent tax that we all pay. While taxes will very rarely ruin an economy historically speaking, inflation is a silent killer that nobody seems to want to discuss. Good for you. Coloring outside the lines like this is exactly how we can make real changes in the system. The biggest thing we have to overcome is the mindsets of those who've bought into the "vote for one of the two parties or you're wasting your vote" propaganda. To them, I simply ask this: "If both parties are going to f*** me over, how is not voting for them wasting my vote, exactly?" Gun control does not directly correlate with violent crime. However, this is moot, as the reason that constitutional amendment was added was so that if our government was ever to turn against us, as governments inevitably have throughout history, we could resist it by force if necessary. Gun rights have never been much about hunting, but about grass roots resistance to dictatorship. Don't forget, this is why and how our government was founded in the first place!
In Tokyo, Japan, their mayor was shot within the past few years. Now, there is a gun ban there (I believe nationwide), but somehow, the mayor was shot. Granted, it was by a gang member, but still, it does point out that banning a weapon doesn't stop it's use. All it does is disarm the average, law-abiding citizen. Weapons are a deterrent in many cases because it's assumed that if someone is armed, they also would know how to use it. Even if not, do you really want to chance it? As far as government bailing people out, that's not what it's there for. It's not for corporate bailouts nor for paying people to sit on their ass at home. Let's just go and assume the government is being totally benevolent here for the sake of argument. Even if there is total good will involved, the government, unlike the typical business doesn't have unlimited funds and must be efficient. You aren't owed money because you failed or won't get a job. I know it's harsh during these times, but the government, and by extention, other taxpayers, aren't there to be forced to pony up. Now, we do need a government as a means of unification. A government is like glue. You need a certain amount (laws, legal system, language, currency) to hold people together reasonably well. However, if you get too much on, it gets into or over everything, which describes what we have today. Both major parties are ultimately self-serving in one way or another. I totally agree with the sentiment of being stuck in a rut between the two major parties. They won't do anything significant unless they really have a chance of getting it handed to them in an election. Now, there are some good folks on either side in the parties, but in general, they make me want to wretch. As already mentioned, me and AT live in two vastly different areas of the country. I don't know what he makes, but that same dollar amount would go much further in Indiana. I don't make a whole lot, but I can't believe people live on so much less than I do and make it. I probably do squeeze into some classification of poor, but if not, I'm currently at the low-end of the middle class. I want the fed to stay the hell out of my business, but the way things are, it's impossible to do that.
