Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist

[bloemmarc]

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=88594

Read this utube video from another political forum. Alan Keys is saying exactly what I have thought all along concerning Obama.

It would be wonderful to get me wrong to have the first African American president in office, but definatly not this man.

[Andrew]

As he and his team continue their work, there is every reason to think we will lose even more of our freedom and pay more (that would be us taxpayers) for the priviledge.


Trying my best to increase my family's carbon footprint.

[Bartholomew]

...uh. Yeah. That video made so much sense. Down with those evil, baby killing communists.

[Andrew]

I had the honor of hearing Dr. Keyes speak in Birmingham at the GOP straw poll convention for the 2000 race--he won the poll. He is a great man who is unafraid to stand for something he believes in and many of us believe he is of truth.
Being of truth means he will never be elected to national office of course.

[Bartholomew]

He's spouting a well-discredited (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/) conspiracy theory.

Here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-06-12_obama_birth_certificate.jpg

[bloemmarc]

Being of truth means he will never be elected to national office of course.

No doubt. Why is it we can never get anybody in there who is TRULY honest, who doesn't have an agenda, who doesn't seek to easily sway people with pretty speeches, and who can just get the job done the correct way?

That doesn't seem possible anymore.

[Bartholomew]

Honest people don't have agendas? So Birmingham would get elected, and not promptly attack abortion? That's not an agenda?

[bloemmarc]

That does seem legit, but but then why are there still so many question from very credible people regarding his citizenship?

Even if he is a legit citizen, he's still proving to be a very bad, and inexperienced socialist.






He's spouting a well-discredited (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/) conspiracy theory.

Here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-06-12_obama_birth_certificate.jpg

[Bartholomew]

From the link I posted earlier, in this thread:

Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory "develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence," Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. "As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy."

Also, please provide evidence that Obama is a communist (or a socialist. They're different things.) Because so far, he just seems to be a subscriber to Keynesian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics), which (among other things) believes that an increase in government's spending in the aggregate demand curve can keep recessions short.

[ColoradoGuy]

Also, please provide evidence that Obama is a communist (or a socialist. They're different things.) Because so far, he just seems to be a subscriber to Keynesian economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics), which (among other things) believes that an increase in government's spending in the aggregate demand curve can keep recessions short.
And he's really a pretty luke-warm Keynesian. The real ones are screaming for much, much more government spending.

[blacbird]

That does seem legit, but but then why are there still so many question from very credible people regarding his citizenship?

Q. Why are there still so many people who believe in alien abductions and the Loch Ness Monster?

A. Because they want to.

cred-i-ble. adj. Agreeing with what I want to believe.

-- Blacbird's Unabridged Dictionary, 2009 ed.

caw

[Romantic Heretic]

America is a doomed nation regardless of who is President.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

[rugcat]

Keyes is the Jessie Jackson of the right. The main difference between them (apart from their ideology) is that Jackson is a dishonest and greedy hypocrite, whereas Keyes is actually delusional.

The real reason that he will never be elected to national office is that the majority of voters, though perhaps not as intelligent and informed as we might like, are still not completely insane.

Yet.

[ColoradoGuy]

. . . A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Except we got through that one, despite what Lincoln said, and came out stronger, and perhaps a little wiser.

[Zoombie]

Yeah, Romantic Heretic, it'll take more than a depression to destroy our country.

Heck, it took more than a Civil War to destroy our country.

Also, I think this "stop Obama or the US will asplode" stuff is about as lurid and overdone and STUPID as the people who drew pictures of Bush as Hitler.

[AncientEagle]

I had the honor of hearing Dr. Keyes speak in Birmingham at the GOP straw poll convention for the 2000 race--he won the poll. He is a great man who is unafraid to stand for something he believes in and many of us believe he is of truth.
Being of truth means he will never be elected to national office of course.
(Note my bold.) To each his own. You think he is of truth. I think he is of idiocy.

[robeiae]

Keyes is the Jessie Jackson of the right. The main difference between them (apart from their ideology) is that Jackson is a dishonest and greedy hypocrite, whereas Keyes is actually delusional.

Ha! That's excellent.

[Cranky]

Except we got through that one, despite what Lincoln said, and came out stronger, and perhaps a little wiser.

Yeah. Reports of the US's demise (or suicide, if you prefer) are a bit premature, to say the least.

[AMCrenshaw]

April Fools?






AMC

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

That does seem legit, but but then why are there still so many question from very credible people regarding his citizenship?
Because the Illuminati brainwashed them using secret alien technology from the Roswell crash, as part of the plot to cover up the fakeness of the so-called "moon-landings". As proof, check out this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201359.html), where Obama "made it clear he is not enamored with NASA's effort to build a new spacecraft to take astronauts to the moon and beyond." Why would he oppose attempts to field a real moon-mission unless he was worried the fake moon-missions might be revealed for the total frauds they are? The Illuminati brainwashed those poor deluded fools to create a "den of lunatics" (note the moon/luna connection again) who, by their frothingly public insanity, would discredit Obama's opponents and anyone who might reveal the actual conspiracy, and thus help him into power so as to thwart the proposed real moon missions.

Even if he is a legit citizen, he's still proving to be a very bad, and inexperienced socialist.
So your complaint about him is that he isn't a sufficiently experienced and competent socialist?

[Zoombie]

Of course, Mr.C, it all makes sense now...but...what about ME-13 and the Gray Death? Bob Page is mixed up in this somehow, I know it!

<really obscure video game reverence>

[Millicent M'Lady]

Even if he is a legit citizen, he's still proving to be a very bad, and inexperienced socialist.

Why is the word "socialist" always used as an insult in debates about American politicians? The Oxford dictionary defines socialism as "a theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy".

So a socialist is somebody who wishes to improve life for all levels of society. Aren't they? What is wrong with that? What am I missing? :Wha:
Are they secret kitten-killers in their spare time?

[Zoombie]

My personal paranoid theory is this: people mentally attach "National" to the front of Socialist.

[Romantic Heretic]

Yeah. Reports of the US's demise (or suicide, if you prefer) are a bit premature, to say the least.
I hope you're right. However the differences this time aren't based on regional economics and culture. This is a fundamental difference, an ideological one. One that is spread across the country.

And this difference causes the people on each side of the split to regard those on the other side as no longer being Americans, or even human in many cases.

There wasn't 'ethnic cleansing' in the last Civil War. If another one comes, there will be. Can the U.S. survive damaging itself like that?

[Romantic Heretic]

Why is the word "socialist" always used as an insult in debates about American politicians? The Oxford dictionary defines socialism as "a theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy".

So a socialist is somebody who wishes to improve life for all levels of society. Aren't they? What is wrong with that? What am I missing? :Wha:
Are they secret kitten-killers in their spare time?
In the U.S. 'socialist' is a codeword for 'unfettered evil'. Add a cool reverb and echo effect to get the right meaning. ;)

[Millicent M'Lady]

My personal paranoid theory is this: people mentally attach "National" to the front of Socialist.

You could be right. It just always strikes me as bizarre that people kick so hard against an ideal which favours helping each other and ensuring that none in society is left out in the cold. It particularly infuriates me when hard-core religious conservatives use the word "socialism" as an insult, especially as socialism is essentially humanitarian. Or maybe I'm just naive.:Shrug:

[Zoombie]

I rather doubt that we've gotten that far.

I don't consider those on the "other side" to be inhuman, and neither does a lot of people. Also, if you were to listen to the people paint their ideological enemies as inhuman monsters, you should have checked out America in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Heck, now a days, its HARDER to paint the other side as completely inhuman or unAmerican, thanks to the freedom of information. You want to find out about someone else's ideology or culture? Check Wikipedia and go from there.

There are extremists on both sides who refuse to see that we're all Americans and we're all people...but they're the minority and easily ignored.

Why?

Case they're batshit insane extremist morons who could have done better if they had just hung an "ignore me" sign around their necks.

[Zoombie]

You could be right. It just always strikes me as bizarre that people kick so hard against an ideal which favours helping each other and ensuring that none in society is left out in the cold. It particularly infuriates me when hard-core religious conservatives use the word "socialism" as an insult, especially as socialism is essentially humanitarian. Or maybe I'm just naive.:Shrug:

My only complaint with socialism is that is an awesome way to distract people from your nefarious goals.

But I'm paranoid like that.

Oh and if Socialism is handled wrongly, it just promotes waste, inefficiency, and general crap like that.

[Cranky]

Why is the word "socialist" always used as an insult in debates about American politicians? The Oxford dictionary defines socialism as "a theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society; advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy".

So a socialist is somebody who wishes to improve life for all levels of society. Aren't they? What is wrong with that? What am I missing? :Wha:
Are they secret kitten-killers in their spare time?

Well, when you stop and consider that some of America's bitterest enemies were Nazi Germany and the communists in Russia before perestroika and glasnost (yes, I know they didn't use *exactly* the same form of governments, but bear with me), it tends to breed an inherent distrust in us 'Mericans. Not to mention the spectacular failures those systems ended up being, so that's double the reason.

[Millicent M'Lady]

I rather doubt that we've gotten that far.

I don't consider those on the "other side" to be inhuman, and neither does a lot of people. Also, if you were to listen to the people paint their ideological enemies as inhuman monsters, you should have checked out America in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Heck, now a days, its HARDER to paint the other side as completely inhuman or unAmerican, thanks to the freedom of information. You want to find out about someone else's ideology or culture? Check Wikipedia and go from there.

There are extremists on both sides who refuse to see that we're all Americans and we're all people...but they're the minority and easily ignored.

Why?

Case they're batshit insane extremist morons who could have done better if they had just hung an "ignore me" sign around their necks.

Of course. I never meant to imply that either side was inhumane; it just annoys me that many still don't see that socialism does not equal communism. That's it though, rant over! :D

Good points though Zoombie.

[Zoombie]

Um...Nazi Germany was a failure only on a moral and ethical and militaristic one.

They were beaten...and they were horribly evil.

But they DID reshape Germany from a destitute third world country into a nation that could very well have taken over the whole world.

The price of that? An evil we're not soon to forget.

I don't think it was worth it.

[Zoombie]

Of course. I never meant to imply that either side was inhumane; it just annoys me that many still don't see that socialism does not equal communism. That's it though, rant over! :D

Good points though Zoombie.


Actually I was talking to Romantic Heretic ^_^;;;;

[Cranky]

Still counts as a failure in my book, Zoom. Just sayin'. :D

[Zoombie]

Actually...it does in mine too!

And we REALLY don't want to try it again, just as shown in Star Trek.

"Zeon Pig!"

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/images/spock%20as%20nazi.jpg

[Millicent M'Lady]

Well, when you stop and consider that some of America's bitterest enemies were Nazi Germany and the communists in Russia before perestroika and glasnost (yes, I know they didn't use *exactly* the same form of governments, but bear with me), it tends to breed an inherent distrust in us 'Mericans. Not to mention the spectacular failures those systems ended up being, so that's double the reason.

Fair points but you can't judge a whole system of government on extremists either. As a modern example, France leans towards socialism and enjoys great healthcare, shorter working hours and one of the highest life expectancies in the world. It just frustrates me socialism is painted as an evil. Where it is done right (and moderated correctly), it is of great benefit to its people. Extremists and zealots can exist in any regime or governmental system. But that's just my two cents.:)

[Millicent M'Lady]

Actually I was talking to Romantic Heretic ^_^;;;;

Darn! Still good points though! :D

[Zoombie]

Fair points but you can't judge a whole system of government on extremists either. As a modern example, France leans towards socialism and enjoys great healthcare, shorter working hours and one of the highest life expectancies in the world. It just frustrates me socialism is painted as an evil. Where it is done right (and moderated correctly), it is of great benefit to its people. Extremists and zealots can exist in any regime or governmental system. But that's just my two cents.:)

All good points for why I am a Radical Moderate: Most political systems have some good in them...if you can somehow combine them all with a touch of moderation and sanity, I think you could come up with a near perfect system.

Though I think, till we come up with that, I'll stick with a good old Republic/Democracy assisted by easy use of telecommunications to make it workable.

[nighttimer]

Alan Keyes is a far right wing crank whose appeal is largely restricted to the conspiratorial extreme.

He has run several times for the presidency and the U.S. Senate, including as a carpetbagger against Barack Obama.


U.S. Senate (Republican) in Maryland 1988 LOST
U.S. Senate (Republican) in Maryland 1992 LOST
U.S. Senate (Republican) in Illinois 2004 LOST
U.S. president (Republican) in 1996 and 2000 LOST
U.S. president (independent) in 2008 LOST
Obama beat Keyes like a rented mule and Keyes hasn't quite got over that humiliation.

ALAN KEYES: Obama is a radical communist. And I think it's becoming clear. That's what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it's true. He's going to destroy this country, and we're either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.

I can't take anyone seriously who says stupid shit like that.

Alan Keyes is a extremist crank, a loser and a bit of a nutcase. :crazy:

[Millicent M'Lady]

If you can somehow combine them all with a touch of moderation and sanity, I think you could come up with a near perfect system.


Smarter people than me have tried! Radical Moderate? That's a new one on me. I like it!

[Zoombie]

A new vict...er...recruit!

huzzah! Check this thread out for more info!

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132715

[robeiae]

There wasn't 'ethnic cleansing' in the last Civil War. If another one comes, there will be. Can the U.S. survive damaging itself like that?
Wha?

[Millicent M'Lady]

A new vict...er...recruit!

huzzah! Check this thread out for more info!

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132715

Sign me up! Common sense politics. It'll never last...!

[Zoombie]

Actually, the standard operating procedure back then violates almost every known part of the Geneva Convention, sooo...

Yes, its a crazy gamble, Mr Rorschach, but we might as well take the shot!

[Millicent M'Lady]

Actually, the standard operating procedure back then violates almost every known part of the Geneva Convention, sooo...

Yes, its a crazy gamble, Mr Rorschach, but we might as well take the shot!

That's Madam Rorschach to you.:) I'm in!

[robeiae]

Of course. I never meant to imply that either side was inhumane; it just annoys me that many still don't see that socialism does not equal communism.
Just to be real clear, here: full socialism is--in fact--the economic component of communism.

Communism is a totalitarian system. It encompasses the political, the economic, and the social.

Strictly speaking, socialism was about the economic, only. The more socialistic a government, the less private sector there is in the economy. So, total socialism means no private sector, which is the state of the economy under communism.

Now, "socialism" has become kinda vague. Like far too many political and economic labels.

[Millicent M'Lady]

Just to be real clear, here: full socialism is--in fact--the economic component of communism.

Communism is a totalitarian system. It encompasses the political, the economic, and the social.

Strictly speaking, socialism was about the economic, only. The more socialistic a government, the less private sector there is in the economy. So, total socialism means no private sector, which is the state of the economy under communism.

Now, "socialism" has become kinda vague. Like far too many political and economic labels.

That's a fair assessment. These labels are increasingly vague and my definition of socialism differs from others, I suppose, in that I don't endorse "total socialism" or any other form of totalitarianism. I think socialism to a degree does not hinder any political system although I would never advocate the total nationalisation of any economy. I believe the socialisation of fundamental rights such as healthcare, when done properly, is of benefit to everybody.

Of course, moderation needs to be exercised as with anything. That's why I'm signing up to be a Radical Moderate.;)

[Zoombie]

<cackles evilly>

[robeiae]

To be sure, there are no "non-socialist" governments, today. Every government is at least somewhat socialist, under the rubric I described. The extent is indeed the real question.

[Millicent M'Lady]

To be sure, there are no "non-socialist" governments, today. Every government is at least somewhat socialist, under the rubric I described. The extent is indeed the real question.

To varying degrees though. I just depair when I see "socialism" bandied around like a dirty word. It has its place in society and can be be of great value to society, if only as a component of a wider system.

[robeiae]

Oh, I still think it's a dirty word...

:D

[Zoombie]

"So, rob, did you give it to her hard last night?"

"Yeah boys...I nationalized her something good."

[Millicent M'Lady]

Oh, I still think it's a dirty word...

:D

Then, your vocabulary is much tamer than mine...! :ROFL:

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

Just to be real clear, here: full socialism is--in fact--the economic component of communism.
While the terms have been sufficiently muddied to the point where this statement is arguably correct, "socialism" and "communism" for a long time had very different connotations. More specifically, while both envisioned collective ownership of the means of production and disfavored markets as a means of distribution, socialism tended to attempt a meritocratic division of wealth (whereby one's share of society's wealth varies in proportion to one's contribution to society) while communism purported to distribute wealth according to need, independent of contribution (hence the communist refrain "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need").

[StephanieFox]

Actually...it does in mine too!

And we REALLY don't want to try it again, just as shown in Star Trek.

"Zeon Pig!"

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/images/spock%20as%20nazi.jpg
Are those Jews in Nazi uniforms? During Passover? What th' hell....

[Cyia]

Because the Illuminati brainwashed them using secret alien technology from the Roswell crash, as part of the plot to cover up the fakeness of the so-called "moon-landings".

We did not... Nor do we exist.

That is all.

(Who has the hypno-spinning disk picture?)

[robeiae]

While the terms have been sufficiently muddied to the point where this statement is arguably correct, "socialism" and "communism" for a long time had very different connotations. More specifically, while both envisioned collective ownership of the means of production and disfavored markets as a means of distribution, socialism tended to attempt a meritocratic division of wealth (whereby one's share of society's wealth varies in proportion to one's contribution to society) while communism purported to distribute wealth according to need, independent of contribution (hence the communist refrain "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need").
That's the marxist redefinition of the terminology. Which--I'll grant--is superior to the current vagueness. Still, the first socialists envisioned an even split of wealth, as it were. The principle point remains: no private ownership.

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

We did not... Nor do we exist.

That is all.

(Who has the hypno-spinning disk picture?)

http://www.aarvid238.com/tadpui/Pictures/hypnotoad.jpg

[Cyia]

Ewww.... not a toadie. Someone has a spinner thingy.

(I think it's Haskins.)

[Bird of Prey]

Keyes is the Jessie Jackson of the right. The main difference between them (apart from their ideology) is that Jackson is a dishonest and greedy hypocrite, whereas Keyes is actually delusional.

The real reason that he will never be elected to national office is that the majority of voters, though perhaps not as intelligent and informed as we might like, are still not completely insane.

Yet.

Oh I get it, I get it!! Jackson is a religious civil rights leader, and Keyes is a right wing politician. So, there's an apt comparison because they're. . . black??

Ooooh. I see. Well, they have nothing in common other than skin color. The comparison is ridiculous. It's also, uh. . . . .

[bloemmarc]

I like this socialism example email going around:

An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. The class believed that socialism worked because no one would be poor and no one would be rich; therefore, a great equalizer. The professor said, 'Ok, we'll have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the 2nd test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average resulted in a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, etc. all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed the class, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately and definitely fail. Because the harder it is to succeed, the greater the reward, but when a socialist government takes all the reward away, the incentive to succeed is gone and no one will try.


My only complaint with socialism is that is an awesome way to distract people from your nefarious goals.

But I'm paranoid like that.

Example, I have a friend that grew up in a very poor family. After high school, he became very good at construction, and then started his own remodeling, and construction business, and now makes very very good money six figures, why because he used his talents and worked very very hard at it.

Contrast that to somebody like my cousin who was born with a lot of natural talent and brains, but is one of the laziest people I've ever known. He is intent to instead sit on welfare and soak up our tax dollars, even though he's fully able to work, the government just lets him sit on welfare, and essentially become a useless waste to society. I have no use for him, or people like him.

Don't get me wrong though, I know that there really are people out there who do need aid, and should receive welfare, but I also expect them to be doing their best to get off of welfare and work again. If they never find anything, I understand, just as long as they are trying.

To freely give away our hard earned tax dollars, and to keep rasing taxes and give it to people like my cousin or illegall aliens just really makes my blood boil.

Oh and if Socialism is handled wrongly, it just promotes waste, inefficiency, laziness, and general crap like that.

[Zoombie]

But, look at the opposite angle.

If you have NO regulation and NO rules, then the people who work hard could just, ya know, turn the tables around and make it so no one could ever challenge them.

Remember the Robber Barons?

They were CALLED that for a REASON!

That's why we need a little bit of Government regulation to keep the market from becoming corrupt. But we also need the third balancer: People who care enough to keep involved in politics and economics to keep the Goverment from becoming corrupt. A balancing act.

Which, again, is why I'm a Radical Moderate.

Also, I agree with you on welfare: You should have to qualify for welfare by actively working or attempting to find work. And if you spend it on something like booze or drugs? Instant boot from the system.

[KCathy]

I voted for Huckabee (okay, well I dreamed about it longingly in the night), I disagree with lots of President Obama's actions, and I still think it's a ludicrous, inflammatory exaggeration to say that he's going to single-handedly end the U.S. We still have a few checks and balances and even some feisty conservatives in office.

Wasn't everyone just hollering a few months ago that Bush was the apocalypse incarnate? Shouldn't we have to wait until at least six months into a presidency to start forseeing the end of the world in our tea dregs? Geesh. Couldn't something just be really bad for a change instead of The Worst Thing Ever? Stupid media, mumble mumble, over-reactive twits mumble mumble.

[Millicent M'Lady]

I like this socialism example email going around:

An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. The class believed that socialism worked because no one would be poor and no one would be rich; therefore, a great equalizer. The professor said, 'Ok, we'll have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the 2nd test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average resulted in a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, etc. all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed the class, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately and definitely fail. Because the harder it is to succeed, the greater the reward, but when a socialist government takes all the reward away, the incentive to succeed is gone and no one will try.


My only complaint with socialism is that is an awesome way to distract people from your nefarious goals.

But I'm paranoid like that.

Example, I have a friend that grew up in a very poor family. After high school, he became very good at construction, and then started his own remodeling, and construction business, and now makes very very good money six figures, why because he used his talents and worked very very hard at it.

Contrast that to somebody like my cousin who was born with a lot of natural talent and brains, but is one of the laziest people I've ever known. He is intent to instead sit on welfare and soak up our tax dollars, even though he's fully able to work, the government just lets him sit on welfare, and essentially become a useless waste to society. I have no use for him, or people like him.

Don't get me wrong though, I know that there really are people out there who do need aid, and should receive welfare, but I also expect them to be doing their best to get off of welfare and work again. If they never find anything, I understand, just as long as they are trying.

To freely give away our hard earned tax dollars, and to keep rasing taxes and give it to people like my cousin or illegall aliens just really makes my blood boil.

Oh and if Socialism is handled wrongly, it just promotes waste, inefficiency, laziness, and general crap like that.

Do you have a link to that? It sounds like an interesting read.

I don't think pure capitalism is the answer though. Saying that, I have a brother like your cousin who is quite happy to sit on his bum and do nothing and receive over 200 euro a week for it. He makes my two siblings and I very angry as we all have been working hard since we legally could to work. I just think it's crazy that the US is seen as a country where people are working two or three jobs just to survive and more people don't think this is nuts.

[Zoombie]

Yeah, I always take a queer kind of pride in how hard America works.

And yet we consider ourselves one of the laziest nations in the world.

Weird.

[Millicent M'Lady]

Yeah, I always take a queer kind of pride in how hard America works.

And yet we consider ourselves one of the laziest nations in the world.

Weird.

I seriously cannot imagine any other country thinking this way. All that work for what? Don't get me wrong, I am not lazy. I have worked damn hard at everything I have ever done and supported myself through college. I still cannot imagine working three jobs at once. Where is the quality of life in that?

[Zoombie]

The knowledge that your kids are going to be able to go to college.Its not much, but I've seen a lot of families held together just by that dogged determination to make their kid's lives better.

[Millicent M'Lady]

The knowledge that your kids are going to be able to go to college.Its not much, but I've seen a lot of families held together just by that dogged determination to make their kid's lives better.

But why should families have to work that hard to just educate their children? That's horrible pressure to be under. I know how expensive college was for me and that was without fees. One of the fundamental tenants of Irish law is the right to free education. Certain fees sneak in but most of our fees are paid by the Irish government/EU. I can't imagine not being able to educate myself because my parents couldn't or wouldn't pay for it.

[Zoombie]

It builds character and gives a cheap, easily exploitable workforce who are willing to do anything for cash.

[bloemmarc]

No, I don't have a link to that. I just had a friend who told me it.

We need a government that is responsible itself, and also willing to hold the welfare freeloaders responsible for their actions. What really makes me mad is that many of these people act like they are entitled to our tax dollars.

My wife is 20, and I am 22. We married young, and have two young children. She is a stay at home mom, and going to college. I work about 55 hours a week, and sign up for all the overtime I can get. I just expect others to do the same, or atleast try to.

[Millicent M'Lady]

It builds character and gives a cheap, easily exploitable workforce who are willing to do anything for cash.

It built character in me, I will agree with you there. It annoyed me watching some of the other students on Daddy's dime taking everything for granted that other people elsewhere would have done anything for. Still, better those few spoilt kids than one smart student not being able to attend a decent college/university because they/their family were on the breadline.

[Millicent M'Lady]

No, I don't have a link to that. I just had a friend who told me it.

We need a government that is responsible itself, and also willing to hold the welfare freeloaders responsible for their actions. What really makes me mad is that many of these people act like they are entitled to our tax dollars.

My wife is 20, and I am 22. We married young, and have two young children. She is a stay at home mom, and going to college. I work about 55 hours a week, and sign up for all the overtime I can get. I just expect others to do the same, or atleast try to.

Well done to you both! The principle here though is that if the government helps you through college, you are more likely to qualify thus putting more tax into the economy than you might have done otherwise. Nobody should freeload or feel entitled to handouts but there is nothing wrong with people getting help along the way.

[bloemmarc]

Well, she had qualified for some scholarships, and has loans, which we'll have to pay back in due time. I work construction like my friend.

I'm just trying to be a writer as well, hopefully someday.


Well done to you both! The principle here though is that if the government helps you through college, you are more likely to qualify thus putting more tax into the economy than you might have done otherwise. Nobody should freeload or feel entitled to handouts but there is nothing wrong with people getting help along the way.

[Cranky]

Fair points but you can't judge a whole system of government on extremists either. As a modern example, France leans towards socialism and enjoys great healthcare, shorter working hours and one of the highest life expectancies in the world. It just frustrates me socialism is painted as an evil. Where it is done right (and moderated correctly), it is of great benefit to its people. Extremists and zealots can exist in any regime or governmental system. But that's just my two cents.:)

I wasn't defending, I was explaining. :)

[Millicent M'Lady]

Well, she had qualified for some scholarships, and has loans, which we'll have to pay back in due time. I work construction like my friend.

I'm just trying to be a writer as well, hopefully someday.

Fingers crossed. You'll have earned it!

[Millicent M'Lady]

I wasn't defending, I was explaining. :)

Sorry! Didn't mean to come off as preachy or lecturing!:o

[Cranky]

Oh I get it, I get it!! Jackson is a religious civil rights leader, and Keyes is a right wing politician. So, there's an apt comparison because they're. . . black??

Ooooh. I see. Well, they have nothing in common other than skin color. The comparison is ridiculous. It's also, uh. . . . .


Jessie Jackson also ran for President on a Democratic ticket once upon a time, as I recall. That's a pretty clear definition of a politician right there. There isn't much Reverend to Jessie Jackson, or hasn't been in some time.

Rainbow Coalition, you remember?

[Cranky]

Sorry! Didn't mean to come off as preachy or lecturing!:o

No, no I didn't take it that way, hence my smile. I just wanted to clarify, that's all.

[Bird of Prey]

Jessie Jackson also ran for President on a Democratic ticket once upon a time, as I recall. That's a pretty clear definition of a politician right there. There isn't much Reverend to Jessie Jackson, or hasn't been in some time.

Rainbow Coalition, you remember?

The thing is, at some point in time, we're going to have to stop correlating black to black, woman to woman, white to white, because it's racist, it's sexist and frankly, it's stupid. There are far more appropriate liberals that make apt comparisons to Keyes than Jackson, albeit they happen to be white.

[Cranky]

Jessie Jackson is also a pretty polarizing figure, much as Keyes is (though for different reasons, unless Keyes has been friendly with folks he shouldn't as well) and also an electoral flop.

It's not an inapt comparison, especially when you see what a zealous following Keyes has, albeit small. Though I would be curious who you would compare Keyes to. Seriously, not a smart ass question. Though that's probably getting off-topic...

[Bird of Prey]

Jessie Jackson is also a pretty polarizing figure, much as Keyes is (though for different reasons, unless Keyes has been friendly with folks he shouldn't as well) and also an electoral flop.

It's not an inapt comparison, especially when you see what a zealous following Keyes has, albeit small. Though I would be curious who you would compare Keyes to. Seriously, not a smart ass question. Though that's probably getting off-topic...
Off the top of my head: Howard Dean. . . .

[Cranky]

Hmmmm. Though Dean definitely has way more pull and influence than Keyes does, I think, when you get right down to it. After all, Dean's the DNC Chairman. Of course, Jessie Jackson in his day had more influence, too.

Still, I think that's probably a fair comparison. Thanks. :)

[Mr. Chuckletrousers]

Off the top of my head: Howard Dean. . . .
Seriously? You think Howard Dean is to the Left what Keyes is to the Right? Why?

I would have gone with Ralph Nader, though even that comparison doesn't quite work...

[nighttimer]

Hmmmm. Though Dean definitely has way more pull and influence than Keyes does, I think, when you get right down to it. After all, Dean's the DNC Chairman. Of course, Jessie Jackson in his day had more influence, too.

Still, I think that's probably a fair comparison. Thanks. :)

Point of clarification: Howard Dean stepped down as the Chariman of the Democratic National Committee after the 2008 elections. The DNC is now chaired by Virginia governor Tim Kaine who was appointed by President Obama.

[Cranky]

Ah, thanks for that, nighttimer. I somehow missed that factoid. :)

[dgiharris]

People who bitch and whine about socialism, the ills of socialism, etc always envision a perfect, static, clandestine scenario when it comes to capitalism.

They picture a world in which hard work is rewarded and you get what you work for while those that don't, get what they deserve.

Conversely, when they think of socialism, they always think of the ideolized example of everyone being lazy while they depend on the work of others.

As for the idealized Capitalistic Scenario.

They forget one simple truth. Human beings are not going to sit idly by and starve. The so called, "lazy" people will simply do what all the disenfrachised poor have done throughout history. Rise up, kill the rich people, and spread the wealth.

Of course, the pure capitalists would say, "Well, we will pay for police and prisons, etc. etc."

And then when you add up all of those costs, guess what, it is just cheaper to have a few social programs.

As for the idealized Socialistic Scenario

People always think of the 'greed' nature of man. But man is also a pack animal and instinctually does actions that are for the common good. Trash removal, driving on the right side of the road, following the laws, standing in line and waiting your turn, opening the door for a complete stranger who has their hands full, etc, etc.

We want to be productive members of society. We want to help others. Yes, we are greedy but this need to belong is also ingrained in us. It is a paradox.


In conclusion. Some level of socialism is a natural byproduct of both our morals and values (humanity) and also a response to what would be the negative aspects of our nature if people who were at a disadvantage were categorically ignored, the costs would be tremendous. Much more than just a few social programs.

Mel...

[James81]

People have said the same thing about Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2.

It's hilarious to watch as power shifts from one president to the next and you get to see which people from which parties are complete lunatics.

[blacbird]

They forget one simple truth. Human beings are not going to sit idly by and starve.

Sure they will. At least the intellectually pure ones. The rest . . . they're lazy and incompetent and God doesn't like 'em. Let 'em starve.

Of course, the pure capitalists would say, "Well, we will pay for police and prisons, etc. etc."

The pure capitalists ain't about to support paying for any such damn fool thing, at least not from taxes.

caw

[dgiharris]

The pure capitalists ain't about to support paying for any such damn fool thing, at least not from taxes.


I thought capitalism is all about market forces and letting the market decide.

Seems to me that if there are roaming bands of people systematically killing and stealing from the rich that 'the market' would adjust and police and prisons would be the natural result. (gotta love that invisible hand)

What is the value of protecting all that property you worked so hard for (not to mention your life :) )?
Multiply this value by the probability of it being threatened and that would be the cost you would be willing to pay. :tongue

Mel...

[Zoombie]

Seriously, you just need to read play Bioshock to see how bad a "capitalist" utopia can get.

Then you need to read Atlas Shrugged, if you can wrap your brain around a 60 page long monologue about how awesome money is.

THEN you need to ditch both of those and look at reality, then design a system based off reality.

Though, really, you SHOULD play Bioshock, its an *awesome* game.

[dclary]

I thought capitalism is all about market forces and letting the market decide.

Seems to me that if there are roaming bands of people systematically killing and stealing from the rich that 'the market' would adjust and police and prisons would be the natural result. (gotta love that invisible hand)

What is the value of protecting all that property you worked so hard for (not to mention your life :) )?
Multiply this value by the probability of it being threatened and that would be the cost you would be willing to pay. :tongue

Mel...

Um. As a capitalist.... I wouldn't pay police to lock them up. I'd pay police to shoot them. Kill them. No prisons. Recidivism rate for dead convicts remains at a record 0%.

[Bird of Prey]

Seriously? You think Howard Dean is to the Left what Keyes is to the Right? Why?

I would have gone with Ralph Nader, though even that comparison doesn't quite work...


Actually, Dennis Kucinich seems a pretty comparable left to Keye's right.

[Don]

I like this socialism example email going around:
Great story. I'd love to see that documented as a social experiment.
But, look at the opposite angle.

If you have NO regulation and NO rules, then the people who work hard could just, ya know, turn the tables around and make it so no one could ever challenge them.

Remember the Robber Barons?

They were CALLED that for a REASON!

That's why we need a little bit of Government regulation to keep the market from becoming corrupt. But we also need the third balancer: People who care enough to keep involved in politics and economics to keep the Government from becoming corrupt. A balancing act.

Which, again, is why I'm a Radical Moderate.

Also, I agree with you on welfare: You should have to qualify for welfare by actively working or attempting to find work. And if you spend it on something like booze or drugs? Instant boot from the system.
Zoombie, first, let me applaud your position on welfare. You're dead on.

But now we've got to talk about that comic book history again. The "Robber Barons" were not free-market capitalists by any stretch of the imagination, although that's the common spin used in the government schools. The robber barons would not have existed absent the political power they wielded to stifle their competition and control the marketplace.

By conflating market and political entrepreneurs, government schools teach, cleverly enough, that the solution to all our problems is government... when in many cases they are the cause of the problem, not the solution. The "Robber Barons" are a prime example of that situation.

This article (http://mises.org/story/2317) is well worth the time to read if you want both sides of the story.

The American economy has always included a mix of market and political entrepreneurs — self-made men and women as well as political connivers and manipulators. And sometimes, people who have achieved success as market entrepreneurs in one period of their lives later become political entrepreneurs. But the distinction between the two is critical to make, for market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not — it is neomercantilism.

In some cases, of course, the entrepreneurs commonly labeled "robber barons" did indeed profit by exploiting American customers, but these were not market entrepreneurs. For example, Leland Stanford, a former governor and US senator from California, used his political connections to have the state pass laws prohibiting competition for his Central Pacific railroad, and he and his business partners profited from this monopoly scheme. Unfortunately, the resentment that this naturally generated among the public was unfairly directed at other entrepreneurs who succeeded in the railroad industry without political interference that tilted the playing field in their direction. Thanks to historians who fail to (or refuse to) make this crucial distinction, many Americans have an inaccurate view of American capitalism.

You like to mention "Atlas Shrugged," so think of James Taggart vs. Dagny Taggart. James Taggart was all about the politics of pull. He was a political entrepreneur, trying to get ahead by political manipulation and regulation. His sister Dagny was a market entrepreneur. Conflating those two attitudes toward the marketplace is the worst possible mistake you can make, and it's one heavily promoted by the government schools.

The article I quoted goes on to explain the history of James J. Hill and the Great Northern Railroad. For those who think "Atlas Shrugged" presents a totally unrealistic viewpoint, the history to the Great Northern may prove to be a real eye-opener. James J. Hill and Dagny Taggart have much in common.

Regulation that prevents the use of force or fraud has its place. Unfortunately, that is not the history of the vast majority of government intervention in the marketplace.

[Romantic Heretic]

Um. As a capitalist.... I wouldn't pay police to lock them up. I'd pay police to shoot them. Kill them. No prisons. Recidivism rate for dead convicts remains at a record 0%.
I suppose that includes people like me on a disability? No quicker cure for my problem than a sudden case of 9mm lead poisoning.

I have to laugh at the 'work hard and get ahead' myth. Because it is a myth.

When I could work I did work hard. My reviews were always the same. "Doesn't fit into the company culture. Unable to take proper direction from management. Unpopular with his colleagues. Insufficient attention to company protocol (Meaning I sucked at filling out forms). But his work's very good." :rolleyes:

The worst case was where I spent three weeks of 16 to 20 hour days including weekends to fix the mess a team of six people made over several months. I got a dressing down for 'exceeding my authority' and being 'insufficiently attentive to the client's needs'. You see the client was using the mess to defraud its investors and the government. "Our computer system isn't working properly. You know how it is. But we have accurate paper books."

I have to laugh at so many people's insistence that our countries be run more like businesses. Almost none of the businesses I know of work on democratic principles. Most are authoritarian in nature. The large majority are feudal in their organization, a few approach the Soviet model in their heavy handedness. But humans prefer authoritarianism. So much easier to follow orders than think for yourself.

[dclary]

I suppose that includes people like me on a disability? No quicker cure for my problem than a sudden case of 9mm lead poisoning. you suppose wrong.

I have to laugh at the 'work hard and get ahead' myth. Because it is a myth.No, that's wrong too. This is, has been, and continues to be, for now, the land of opportunity. A person with drive, motivation and creativity can find vast success here. The myth is that hard work is all that it takes, and that hasn't been true since the 50s.

When I could work I did work hard. My reviews were always the same. "Doesn't fit into the company culture. Unable to take proper direction from management. Unpopular with his colleagues. Insufficient attention to company protocol (Meaning I sucked at filling out forms). But his work's very good." :rolleyes:Then you were working at the wrong kind of companies. I know where you're coming from there. I've thrived at small companies, and I've been run out of large corporations. Exact same job, exact same skillset and responsibilities... But my personality is not suited for the corporate environment.

Just because you're disabled doesn't mean you can't work. It certainly doesn't mean you should have some innate right not to work. In today's world, with today's technology, there are so many more opportunities to succeed without even getting off your couch than ever before.

[StarDrifter]

I wonder why you guys don't form a centrist party, where their candidates are actually ALLOWED to be conservative about stuff like crime and liberal about stuff like healthcare without stuffing their whole party over. They'd probably win every election out there.

[Bird of Prey]

I wonder why you guys don't form a centrist party, where their candidates are actually ALLOWED to be conservative about stuff like crime and liberal about stuff like healthcare without stuffing their whole party over. They'd probably win every election out there.


You're right. But, unfortunately, we don't think like you do: logically. And we have too many weak at the knees voters that continually swear by a two party system because. . well, what if there really was change??


Edit: that said, Obama so far has proved he's better than the last, and I'm compelled - as much as I said I wouldn't be - to support him regardless of "disagreements."

[Cyia]

Just because you're disabled doesn't mean you can't work. It certainly doesn't mean you should have some innate right not to work. In today's world, with today's technology, there are so many more opportunities to succeed without even getting off your couch than ever before.

Depends on the disability.

[bloemmarc]

Don't get me wrong, Bush wasn't a great president, or good one, but how is Obama any better?

So far, he's broken many of his campaign promises, and we're only a couple of months in.

Like Bush, he's printing and burrowing money that we don't have, throwing around trillions like it's candy, and sooner or later, it's going to destroy around financial system whether he says that the economy is getting better or not. What he, Polosi, and Reid are doing is unsustainable in the long run, and will ultimately lead us right into the hands of the U.N., and the new world order,"one world government," which is what they want anyways.



You're right. But, unfortunately, we don't think like you do: logically. And we have too many weak at the knees voters that continually swear by a two party system because. . well, what if there really was change??


Edit: that said, Obama so far has proved he's better than the last, and I'm compelled - as much as I said I wouldn't be - to support him regardless of "disagreements."

[Zoombie]

Regulation that prevents the use of force or fraud has its place. Unfortunately, that is not the history of the vast majority of government intervention in the marketplace.

Which is WHY we need to take a stand and CHANGE the government so that it DOES what it SHOULD!

And we should CAPITALIZE every IMPORTANT word in a PHRASE, just like COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS!

[Bird of Prey]

Don't get me wrong, Bush wasn't a great president, or good one, but how is Obama any better?

So far, he's broken many of his campaign promises, and we're only a couple of months in.

Like Bush, he's printing and burrowing money that we don't have, throwing around trillions like it's candy, and sooner or later, it's going to destroy around financial system whether he says that the economy is getting better or not. What he, Polosi, and Reid are doing is unsustainable in the long run, and will ultimately lead us right into the hands of the U.N., and the new world order,"one world government," which is what they want anyways.


Actually, Obama was quite resistant to international banking regulation at the G summit, much to the dissatisfaction of France and Germany. So I don't think he's ready for a "one world government." I think he's interested in global cooperation. That's O.K., isn't it? What are you specifically concerned about? And perhaps you will explain how an unsustainable financial plan will lead us into the hands of the U.N. I think it's pretty clear that if push comes to shove, we will do what all countries do when we are at odds with our investors: nationalize. We've come very close; some say we have. But perhaps I'm not reading you correctly.

[James81]

So far, he's broken many of his campaign promises, and we're only a couple of months in.

I think that statement requires some "proof." Going to have to ask you to make a list of all the campaign promises he's broken and maybe even provide some links to where he made the promise and then to how it was broken.

So far, the only campaign promise that I know of that he has "broken" (more like bent) was the one about "no lobbyists in the whitehouse." And personally, I can live with that one. I never expect any candidate to stick to their campaign promises anyway. In fact, I would HOPE that a candidate DOES break a few of them, because there is a huge difference between campaigning for president and actually BEING president, and if some of your campaign views don't change while in office, I would actually worry that you are actually doing any work while in office. Nobody's campaign views are 100% correct, and sometimes it requires some changes to what you think you need to do and what actually needs done.

Like Bush, he's printing and burrowing money that we don't have, throwing around trillions like it's candy, and sooner or later, it's going to destroy around financial system whether he says that the economy is getting better or not. What he, Polosi, and Reid are doing is unsustainable in the long run, and will ultimately lead us right into the hands of the U.N., and the new world order,"one world government," which is what they want anyways.

You need to stop getting your political views from your preacher.

Why on earth would our government want to give up our power to a one world authority? We already ARE the world government and the "new world order" and I'd say that making our government fit into a one world mold would be detrimental to the power we already hold. And just an FYI, I believe it was George Bush Sr. who first subscribed to the idea of a "new world order," many years ago. ;)

[robeiae]

I think that statement requires some "proof." Going to have to ask you to make a list of all the campaign promises he's broken and maybe even provide some links to where he made the promise and then to how it was broken.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

[James81]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

Oh, cool, out of the promises he made, he's broken 5.

3 of which don't amount to a hill of shit in the scheme of things, 1 of which you can argue is bad, but not the end of the world (lobbyists), and 1 of which is actually a GOOD thing that he DIDN'T keep the promise (withdrawals from retirement accounts).

[robeiae]

Oh, cool, out of the promises he made, he's broken 5.

3 of which don't amount to a hill of shit in the scheme of things, 1 of which you can argue is bad, but not the end of the world (lobbyists), and 1 of which is actually a GOOD thing that he DIDN'T keep the promise (withdrawals from retirement accounts).
*shrug*

I was just being helpful, not making a judgment.

But you know, his promise for transparency amounts to way more than a "hill of shit," in my opinion. I realize you have no problem with a trillion dollar bill being passed before even the people voting on it have read it, let alone the public, but many people--including me--have a BIG problem with that. It can be passed off as "emergency" legislation, but that's a crock, considering what we now know was in that legislation. It was passed and signed with no opportunity for review INTENTIONALLY. And that sucks. Perhaps--if it had been read, first--the Dodd Amendment would have been noted and fixed...

[LaurieD]

Keyes is the Jessie Jackson of the right. The main difference between them (apart from their ideology) is that Jackson is a dishonest and greedy hypocrite, whereas Keyes is actually delusional.

The real reason that he will never be elected to national office is that the majority of voters, though perhaps not as intelligent and informed as we might like, are still not completely insane.

Yet.

QFT

[Romantic Heretic]

Why on earth would our government want to give up our power to a one world authority? We already ARE the world government and the "new world order" and I'd say that making our government fit into a one world mold would be detrimental to the power we already hold. And just an FYI, I believe it was George Bush Sr. who first subscribed to the idea of a "new world order," many years ago. ;)

If you check the text of Sr.'s speech (http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/pal/pal10.htm) he was quite specific that the 'new world order' was one under which international law, as represented by the UN, was the way the world worked in the future.

But, unfortunately, many people don't believe in law or order. They believe in power. As long as that is the case the world will be in danger.

[Don]

Those of you pimping for "One World Order" under the UN would be well-advised to read the UN's version of the "Bill of Rights." According to that document, people have no rights at all; only the benevolence of government allows them to exist, and all "rights" are subject to the whim of the ruling council.

[Zoombie]

Don, that's complete BS. Have you actually READ the U.N declaration of rights?

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

That's. The. First. Article.


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


Now, maybe you have your hands on the REAL, EEEEVIL U.N bill of rights...but for some reason, I doubt that.

[James81]

Don, that's complete BS. Have you actually READ the U.N declaration of rights?



That's. The. First. Article.


http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html


Now, maybe you have your hands on the REAL, EEEEVIL U.N bill of rights...but for some reason, I doubt that.

Uh oh, they didn't give us the right to bear arms. How are we supposed to defend ourselves? :tongue

[Don]

Read the whole thing. Note all the "positive" rights that are "guaranteed" to everybody. Then read Article 29. Now, reread the Bill of Rights. Gee, notice anything different?

Your "negative" rights (government shall not...) are more than offset by the promises of "positive" rights (free this and that) and Article 29 says that's too bad if it works out that way.

That's not a Bill of Rights. It's a laundry-list of promises to be paid for by the productive by the loss of the proceeds of their productivity.

[James81]

Read the whole thing. Note all the "positive" rights that are "guaranteed" to everybody. Then read Article 29. Now, reread the Bill of Rights. Gee, notice anything different?

Your "negative" rights (government shall not...) are more than offset by the promises of "positive" rights (free this and that) and Article 29 says that's too bad if it works out that way.

That's not a Bill of Rights. It's a laundry-list of promises to be paid for by the productive by the loss of the proceeds of their productivity.

Yeah, the whole thing seemed a bit much to me when I read it too.

It sounds good, but it's not quite the same thing we enjoy in America.

Personally, I think if they want a bill of rights for worldwide, why not just use the one that's currently been working for 200+ years? It's as good a bill as any.

[Don]

I'd support statehood for any country that pledged to make the first ten amendments to the Constitution the highest law of the land, as they were intended.

I'd applaud any state with the guts to stand up and insist they be interpreted as such.

[Zoombie]

I agree our bill of rights is a LOT better.

But I'm not seeing anything downright evil in there.

Just not as well worded, which happens to a lot of well meaning wishes that lead to the dead son coming back to life as an evil zombie.

[Don]

Okay, so either the UN employees responsible for writing the document were incompetent, or it says exactly what they intended it to say. I'll trust in the latter, myself.

Article 29 reads to me as the "escape clause" and I the whole thing as diametrically opposed to the concept of negative rights that are the focus of our own Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[James81]

But I'm not seeing anything downright evil in there.



Don's right. Number 29 is pretty terrible.

It's ok if the governments of the world always had the best interests of the people in mind, but you and I both know that that's not true.

No bill of rights should ever protect the government. That's not the intention of the Bill of rights.

[Zoombie]

So, just one clause to remove?

Sounds good, lets get cracking. How does one change the U.N's charter?

[Don]

I'd suggest we start by tarring and feathering most of the "diplomats" and burning the building to the ground.

Of course, that's just me. :D

[Zoombie]

Sounds like a plan to me!

Its how we did it last time round.

[James81]

So, just one clause to remove?

Sounds good, lets get cracking. How does one change the U.N's charter?

Hmmm, we can't kill a billion Jews again. That wouldn't be feasible.

I'll have to get back to you.

[Don]

Sounds like a plan to me!

Its how we did it last time round.
So... any comments about post #108 after this bit of discussion? :)

[Zoombie]

Hmmm, we can't kill a billion Jews again. That wouldn't be feasible.

I'll have to get back to you.

We COULD just nuke China...

[Contemplative]

An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. The class believed that socialism worked because no one would be poor and no one would be rich; therefore, a great equalizer. The professor said, 'Ok, we'll have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the 2nd test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average resulted in a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The moral of the story being, socialist systems will fail horribly if they're designed by rightist ideologues specifically to act as talking points.

Also, college professors like ideological indoctrination regardless of which side of the political spectrum they come from. But we all already knew that, right?

[rugcat]

The moral of the story being, socialist systems will fail horribly if they're designed by rightist ideologues specifically to act as talking points.The other moral is that otherwise skeptical people will swallow urban legends whole if it supports their ideological beliefs.

[Contemplative]

Regarding the UN Declaration of Rights,

I think Don may have a point here. I wouldn't have written it the way they did, and not just in that I'd substitute "Parenthood" for "Motherhood" and take out the bits enshrining family.

I believe in a tight definition of what constitutes a human right. I don't like "positive rights", but I also really don't like "property rights". I don't think either term is talking about things that are truly rights. I'd be much more comfortable if that document was divided into two sections -- an actual declaration of the rights people possess, and a list of things a state must provide to avoid being an inhumane state, where it is possible to do so without violating the rights in the first list.

I guess that's where I draw the line between myself (as a self-described moderate socialist) and more hardline socialists or communists: I believe that the things which actually are human rights -- freedom of speech, freedom from uninitiated violence, freedom of thought, basic privacy, lack of slavery, lack of state legal discrimination -- are of a higher precedence than the things a government should provide in order to be a humane and moral government (education, health care, ability to hold reasonable personal property, employment, economic equality, a healthy environment, etc.), and only the latter list should be subject to priority rearrangement by democratic census. The former -- the actual human rights -- should be inviolable, objective and absolute.

There's a tendency here to try and redefine political and economic ideology as an inherent right, and mostly it isn't. I suppose these "positive rights" were an attempt at a proactive defense against rightists claiming property as an inherent human right, but -- and I hope you'll forgive the pun here -- two wrongs don't make a right.

I mean, I support the agenda they're pushing there. Free education is great, and taxing people to support free education is both morally permissible and laudable. But that's different from saying "free education is a right." You see the difference when you look at a nation which just suffered a crippling economic catastrophe through no fault of their own, and as a result of this poverty are no longer able to provide some of the positive rights regardless of state intent. Is that nation really violating people's rights? Or are they just unfortunate?

This might just be an issue of semantics, but I think it's an important issue of semantics. Just because a particular issue is important doesn't make it a human rights issue.

[Contemplative]

The other moral is that otherwise skeptical people will swallow urban legends whole if it supports their ideological beliefs.

I knew it was an urban legend / allegory / whatever. A professor would never get away with doing that. I was just posting a snarky reply on the assumption that the story was true.

[ColoradoGuy]

The other moral is that otherwise skeptical people will swallow urban legends whole if it supports their ideological beliefs.
Bingo. Now about that purported birth certificate from Hawaii . . .

[bloemmarc]

http://aphiemi.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/obamas-list-of-broken-promises/

Obama’s List Of Broken Promises

March 13, 2009 by Aphiemi (http://aphiemi.wordpress.com/author/aphiemi/)

WorldNetDaily has a list (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91286) of Obama’s broken promises after just two months in office.
Obama racks up list of broken promises

Just 2 months into term, president abandons numerous commitments


Posted: March 12, 2009
11:30 pm Eastern By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily After only two months in office, President Obama may have fallen short on a number of his campaign promises.
As a candidate, he promised to allow public comment before signing bills, eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, provide tax credits to businesses for hiring new employees, allow Americans to withdraw funds from 401(k) and retirement accounts without penalties, ban lobbyists from serving in his administration, reform earmarks, bring all combat troops home from Iraq in 16 months, sign the “Freedom of Choice Act,” give Americans $4,000 in credits for college and run a “transparent” administration.
However, after giving his word to the American people on so many issues, Obama has yet to fulfill many commitments.
WND has compiled the following extensive list of those abandoned promises:
Broken promise No. 1: ‘Sunlight Before Signing’
When Obama campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in Manchester, N.H., on June 22, 2007, he announced his “Sunlight Before Signing” promise.
“When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it,” he said.

He repeated that promise on his campaign website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/):
“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”
However, Obama signed his first bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, on Jan. 20 – only two days after its passage.
He signed a second bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program just three hours after Congress passed it.
Again, on Feb. 17, Obama signed his 1,000-page $787 billion stimulus aimed at jolting the declining U.S. economy. He did so only one business day after it passed through Congress – without allowing for five days of public comment.
Broken promise No. 2: Capital gains tax elimination
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/capitalgains1.jpg According to his comprehensive tax plan released during his campaign (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf), Obama promised to “eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses.”
Just weeks prior to the election, Obama advisers Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman told the Wall Street Journal that Obama planned tax cuts that included “the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups.”
People who invest in small businesses have only been allowed to exclude 50 percent of that gain from capital gains taxes. While Obama’s $787 billion economic-stimulus package reduces that tax liability – raising the exclusion to 75 percent – it does not eliminate it.
Broken promise No. 3: New American jobs tax credit
During his transition, Obama’s promised to provide a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional full-time U.S. employee hired in 2009 and 2010.
“If a company that currently has 10 U.S. employees increases its domestic full time employment to 20 employees, this company would get a $30,000 tax credit – enough to offset the entire added payroll tax costs to the company for the first $50,000 of income for the new employees,” the transition website stated (http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/). “The tax credit will benefit all companies creating net new jobs, even those struggling to make a profit.”
Obama’s promise was never included in the stimulus package.
Broken promise No. 4: Hiatus on 401(k) penalties
Many unemployed and financially strapped Americans have considered early withdrawals on 401(k) and retirement accounts to survive the current recession. However, the IRS imposes strict penalties of up to 10 percent plus federal, state and local income taxes on such advances.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/401ka.jpgWorkers who have taken $10,000 in early withdrawals from retirement plans have lost as much as 40 percent to taxes and penalties, depending upon tax brackets.
In October 2008, Obama released his “Rescue Plan for the Middle-Class” in which he promised to allow financially distressed Americans to withdraw up to $10,000 from their 401(k) accounts and retirement savings without having to pay penalties. They would only pay income taxes on the amount.
“Since so many Americans will be struggling to pay the bills over the next year, I propose that we allow every family to withdraw up to 15% from their IRA or 401(k) – up to a maximum of $10,000 – without any fine or penalty throughout 2009,” Obama said (http://i.usatoday.net/news/politics/election2008/pdf/obama-10-13-2008.pdf). “This will help families get through this crisis without being forced to make painful choices like selling their homes or not sending their kids to college.”
However, Obama’s promise was never included in his recent stimulus package.
Broken promise No. 5: ‘No jobs for lobbyists’
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/lynn.jpg
William J. Lynn III
Obama promised America he would loosen the grip of lobbyists on Washington.
In his Nov. 10, 2007, speech in Des Moines, Iowa, Obama declared:
I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.
During his campaign, Obama also said, “I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race. I don’t take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House.”
However, USA Today reported (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm) Obama’s campaign fundraising team included 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million in 2007 to lobby the federal government.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/coor1.jpg
William Corr “Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million” for Obama’s campaign, the report states. “Employees of their firms have given Obama’s campaign $2.26 million.”
It wasn’t long before he allowed at least two dozen exceptions (http://thehill.com/business--lobby/lobbyists-slipping-into-obama-administration-2009-03-05.html) and broke his promise.
Obama’s own ethic rules barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues “for as long as I am president.” He also said former lobbyists would be prohibited from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years. President Obama later waived his rules for at least two of his nominees – William J. Lynn III, undersecretary at the Department of Defense and recent lobbyist for Raytheon, and William Corr, deputy secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services and anti-tobacco lobbyist for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Broken promise No. 6: Earmark reform
As WND reports, at the first presidential debate in Oxford, Miss (http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=413002)., Obama declared, “[W]e need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”
However, in February, Obama passed his $787 billion stimulus aimed at jolting the declining U.S. economy. Before a joint session of Congress, Obama declared: “Now, I’m proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/pig1.jpgSome chuckled in amusement when he claimed the bill contained no pork.
“There was just a roar of laughter – because there were earmarks,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., told CNN.
U.S. News & World Report (http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2009/02/19/finding-the-pork-in-the-obama-stimulus-bill.html%22) found at least eight earmarks in his stimulus bill.
Obama also signed a $410 billion omnibus bill for 2009. More than 9,000 earmarks in the spending bill (http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=2049&category=Earmarks&type=Project#) total an estimated $7.7 billion.
Even though the Democrat-controlled Congress crafted the bill after Obama’s election, the administration claims the added pork is just “unfinished business” from last year.
The White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/fiscal/) states, “Obama and Biden will slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.” However, watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that the omnibus pork alone already totals $7.7 billion – just less than the total of $7.8 billion in earmarks in 1994 – and the figure does not include $6.6 billion in earmarks contained in three previous spending bills Congress passed amid the bailout crisis last year.
During his three years in the Senate, Obama requested more than $860 million in earmarks (http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1321&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS), according to the group. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has 16 earmarks – worth approximately $8.5 million – in the bill.
Broken promise No. 7: Bring troops home in 16 months
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/soldiers1.jpg On his campaign website, Obama promised he would “remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
His commitment to bring combat troops home by May 20, 2010, and end the war gave him an edge among Democrats over candidate Hillary Clinton.
However, on Feb. 27, Obama declared, “Let me say this as plainly as I can: By Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”
If Obama adheres to his plan, combat troops will return home months later than originally promised. The New York Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/washington/26troops.html), Obama will withdraw only two of the 14 brigades before December.
As part of a “new era of American leadership,” he also said he would leave behind a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops and remove all U.S. soldiers from Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011 – the same deadline the Bush administration negotiated with the Iraqi government last year in its Status of Forces Agreement.
Additionally, some combat units would remain in Iraq beyond Obama’s declared August 2010 withdrawal. Rather than returning home, they would simply face reassignment as “advisory training brigades.”
Even as combat troops are brought home, Pentagon officials have said fresh units will continue deploying to Iraq.
Broken promise No. 8: Sign ‘Freedom of Choice Act’
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/unbornbaby1.jpg
On July 17, 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “The first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”
Obama expressed his support for the sweeping plan that would repeal all national and state regulations of abortion passed over the last 35 years.
His agenda regarding “reproductive choice” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/women/) is posted on the White House website. It states, Obama “has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration.”
Obama chose radical pro-abortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to serve as the Health secretary, moved to void job protections for health workers who oppose abortion and repealed a ban on U.S. taxpayer funding of foreign abortions. While many pro-life advocates consider it a blessing that Obama has no fulfilled his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, he has made no mention of the legislation since he took office.
Broken promise No. 9: $4,000 college credit
Obama pledged to make college “affordable for all Americans” when he announced his American Opportunity Tax Credit.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/collegemoney1.jpg His campaign promise (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/) read: “This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.”
While the American Opportunity Tax Credit was included in the recent stimulus bill, it offers a credit of only $2,500 for up to two years and requires no commitment to community service.
Broken promise No. 10: Transparency
On the White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/change_has_come_to_whitehouse-gov/), the Obama administration claims it will be “the most open and transparent in history.
The administration released a memo on Jan. 21, stating:
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. …
However, Congress and the administration hurried the $787 billion, 1,027-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to a vote after allowing lawmakers just a few hours to read the bill. It was also available online in a form that could not be keyword searched.
While former administrations immediately posted transcripts of presidential speeches – including some remarks before delivery – the White House website often waits until days or even weeks after an event to release transcripts.
Also, some say recent reports of tax evasion by Obama nominees is evidence that the administration is not as transparent as promised.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/geithner2.jpg
Timothy Geithner
Just before Obama named Timothy Geithner to be his treasury secretary, the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank quietly paid $26,000 in back taxes and interest due since 2001 and 2002.
Obama characterized the eight-year tax evasion as “an innocent mistake.”
But as many as five of his picks defaulted on taxes, including former nominee for health and human services secretary, Tom Daschle; former nominee for chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer; U.S. trade representative nominee Ron Kirk and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.
Furthermore, while the president posted his own weekly “fireside chats” on YouTube during the campaign, many journalists report that he has a history of being less than welcoming to the Fourth Estate.
Columbia Journalism Review (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/who_moved_his_cheese.php?page=1) noted Obama’s treatment of the press: “During the campaign, reporters’ access to Obama was severely limited. On-the-record conversations with the candidate were even more so. Indeed, Obama’s overall treatment of the press – not just in his general rejection of the day-to-day news cycle, but also in his tendency to shun his national traveling press corps … created the impression that its members were, to him, a buzzing nuisance. Instead of the voice of the people.”
WND’s correspondent at the White House, Les Kinsolving, raised the issue in February (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88199) that most of the reporters recognized for questions in the briefing room were among the same handful over and over again. Some of them had been given four or even five opportunities for questions while other reporters were not recognized at all.
Kinsolving, a senior journalist in the White House press corps, was not allowed to voice his questions on issues on which millions of WND readers have expressed an interest. There were also complaints about the time of the November election that not only did Obama rely on a few key reporters for questions, those reporters were chosen ahead of time.
And, finally, WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90955) The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/colb1.jpg
Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth is not his original 1961 birth certificate
However, Obama has refused repeated calls to publicly release his Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery. His campaign posted an alleged “Certification of Live Birth” online, but it is not the same as a Hawaii birth certificate. COLBs have been issued by Hawaii to parents whose children are not born in the state.
Instead of providing the documentation to end the lawsuits, a series of law firms have been hired on Obama’s behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents. – even after more than 320,000 people signed a petition (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550) demanding that he live up to his promise of transparency by releasing the certificate to the public.
Nonetheless, during his campaign and after he took office, Obama maintained that his administration would have an unyielding commitment to transparency.
“The American people want to trust in our government again – we just need a government that will trust in us,” he said in a campaign speech. “And making government accountable to the people isn’t just a cause of this campaign – it’s been a cause of my life for two decades.”
The White House declined to respond to WND’s request for comment on Obama’s promises.


Posted in Abortion (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/abortion/), Economy (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/economy/), Education (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/education/), Health Care (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/health-care/), Media (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/media/), News (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/news/), Politics (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/politics/), Religion (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/religion/) | Tagged 44 (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/44/), Barack Obama (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/barack-obama/), Congress (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/congress/), Democrats (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/democrats/), left-wing (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/left-wing/), liberal (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/liberal/), Obama (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/obama/), President Barack Obama (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/president-barack-obama/), President Obama (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/president-obama/), WND (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/wnd/), WorldNetDaily (http://en.wordpress.com/tag/worldnetdaily/) | No comments.













Actually, Obama was quite resistant to international banking regulation at the G summit, much to the dissatisfaction of France and Germany. So I don't think he's ready for a "one world government." I think he's interested in global cooperation. That's O.K., isn't it? What are you specifically concerned about? And perhaps you will explain how an unsustainable financial plan will lead us into the hands of the U.N. I think it's pretty clear that if push comes to shove, we will do what all countries do when we are at odds with our investors: nationalize. We've come very close; some say we have. But perhaps I'm not reading you correctly.

[Zoombie]

I never even heard of more than half of those promises he's supposedly breaking...

But I am notoriously thick.

[nighttimer]

WorldNetDaily provides primarily evangelical-conservative oriented news and editorials, publishes letters to the editor, maintains forums and conducts a daily poll. It has been described as having a right-wing conservative perspective.

During the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_presidential_campaign), and in the weeks following Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)'s election as president of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States), WorldNetDaily posted numerous articles that advanced conspiracy theories about his citizenship status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories), alleging he is not constitutionally eligible to be president because he is not a natural-born citizen and that his Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery. These claims, however, have been disputed by Obama and Hawaii's state health department.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#cite_note-Reyes-39)[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#cite_note-AP-40) WND frequently posted articles on its homepage giving updates on numerous lawsuits that questioned Obama's citizenship status and were aimed at postponing the election and, later, the inauguration. These articles featured interviews with the plaintiffs, which included former New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Donof rio_v._Obama), 9/11 Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth) attorney Philip J. Berg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg), and former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes). WND and Joseph Farah also touted The Obama Nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Obama_Nation), a book critical of Obama written by WND staff reporter Jerome Corsi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi), which repeated the forgery allegations and claimed that Obama was born in Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily

Got any sources that aren't rabidly right-wing anti-Obama websites, bloemmarc?

Because this one is total b.s. :e2tongue:

[Don]

Got anybody that isn't rabidly left-wing to complain about World Net Daily?

Because... well, you get the drift. :e2tongue:

[James81]

Got anybody that isn't rabidly left-wing to complain about World Net Daily?

Because... well, you get the drift. :e2tongue:

I'm a middle of the roader and I think it looks like a pile of crap.

WorldNetDaily provides primarily evangelical-conservative oriented news and editorials

At least their honest about putting their own spin on it, eh?

[Romantic Heretic]

People take the UN too seriously. It was bought into existence for one reason and one reason only despite all the fancy words in its constitution. That purpose was to prevent WWIII.

That's why the major nations have vetoes on the Security Council. They wouldn't have joined otherwise. And why should they have since it meant they could be outvoted by all the other nations on the Council. But they did join and they accepted the rules of the UN.

The most important new rule was that aggressive war is illegal. A lot of people laugh at this because it is broken so often but before the UN aggressive war wasn't illegal. And those of us who remember history rather than mythology know what that was like.

Also the UN cannot interfere with the sovereignty of any nation unless invited. It cannot impose anything on a nation unless a majority of members agree. It cannot use force unless a majority of the Security Council agree and none of the veto holding members use that veto. The UN's power is very, very limited.

But, it did change the way the world works. It did create a structure of international law which changed the way nations had to interact with each other. It sure beats the hell out of the international anarchy that preceded it.

"This organization is created to keep you from going to hell. It isn't created to take you to heaven," Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Republican Senator and U.S. delegate to the UN, 1955.

[bloemmarc]

Ya, and left wing websites and news reports aren't bias at all. Come on now. They are some of the most treacherous people around, and they usually never get called out on their bias as well. They get a free card, whereas conservatives don't. But conservatives usually print only news that they know, and not make up.


WorldNetDaily provides primarily evangelical-conservative oriented news and editorials, publishes letters to the editor, maintains forums and conducts a daily poll. It has been described as having a right-wing conservative perspective.

During the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_presidential_campaign), and in the weeks following Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)'s election as president of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States), WorldNetDaily posted numerous articles that advanced conspiracy theories about his citizenship status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories), alleging he is not constitutionally eligible to be president because he is not a natural-born citizen and that his Hawaiian birth certificate is a forgery. These claims, however, have been disputed by Obama and Hawaii's state health department.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#cite_note-Reyes-39)[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily#cite_note-AP-40) WND frequently posted articles on its homepage giving updates on numerous lawsuits that questioned Obama's citizenship status and were aimed at postponing the election and, later, the inauguration. These articles featured interviews with the plaintiffs, which included former New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Donof rio_v._Obama), 9/11 Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth) attorney Philip J. Berg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg), and former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes). WND and Joseph Farah also touted The Obama Nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Obama_Nation), a book critical of Obama written by WND staff reporter Jerome Corsi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Corsi), which repeated the forgery allegations and claimed that Obama was born in Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily

Got any sources that aren't rabidly right-wing anti-Obama websites, bloemmarc?

Because this one is total b.s. :e2tongue:

[nighttimer]

Got any sources that aren't rabidly right-wing anti-Obama websites, bloemmarc?

Because this one is total b.s. :e2tongue:

Ya, and left wing websites and news reports aren't bias at all. Come on now. They are some of the most treacherous people around, and they usually never get called out on their bias as well. They get a free card, whereas conservatives don't. But conservatives usually print only news that they know, and not make up.

So, that's a "no" then?

Just generalities about "left wing websites" and bias. Yeah, that's kind of what I expected.

I'm not the one quoting a site with an overt and obvious bias against all things Obama, including a reporter who wrote an overtly anti-Obama book. You are and that makes your claims about bias just a wee bit hard to take seriously.

[cethklein]

Keyes is the Jessie Jackson of the right. The main difference between them (apart from their ideology) is that Jackson is a dishonest and greedy hypocrite, whereas Keyes is actually delusional.

The real reason that he will never be elected to national office is that the majority of voters, though perhaps not as intelligent and informed as we might like, are still not completely insane.

Yet.

Best post I've seen in ages.

Keyes is a nut-job, the guy has issues. He's on about the same level as Fred Phelps or Ramsey Clark. He's the right's answer to "Truthers". And Truthers are people that no one outside of their own ranks supports, no matter the ideology. For those who support Keyes, think about Truthers. Think about how asinine their arguments are. That's what you look like to the rest of us.

[robeiae]

Got any sources that aren't rabidly right-wing anti-Obama websites, bloemmarc?

Because this one is total b.s. :e2tongue:

I'm a middle of the roader and I think it looks like a pile of crap.
I already provided a source for Obama's "broken" promises in this post: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3489814&postcount=102

Imo, the people compiling the info are trying their best to not show any favoritism. Some promises that Obama made and broke--imo--they label as "compromise." But the ones they tag as "broken" are most of the ones listed in the World Net Daily piece.
So, that's a "no" then?

Just generalities about "left wing websites" and bias. Yeah, that's kind of what I expected.But all you did was criticize the source. You offered nothing to counter the specifics in the story. Why is that?

[dclary]

Come on, Robeiae, you know the message is meaningless if you can demonize the messenger.

[Contemplative]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: the only fair metric for judging a politician's broken promises is by comparing the list to that of another politician who held the same office. Control variable, you know?

That site is dishonest in one very severe way -- they log exactly ONE promise made by Bush.

Look, there's worse things for a politician to be that a liar, and I'd seriously argue that compulsively honest and unwavering is one of them.

I'm not excusing some of the broken promises. Some, like the transparency stuff, are very bad. Others (16 months) are simply a failure to perform to a claimed mark while still clearly moving in the right direction. Others (earmarks, lobbyists) are just how Washington works, and anyone that believed those when they were made is not very politically informed. There are also some that I don't consider broken yet -- the "first thing I'll do" is a subjective phrase, arguably just rhetoric, when the country is in a financial crisis. If he never does it, yeah, then he lied on that point and that's bad.

I'd note also that one version of the transparency promise posted above specifically includes the clause: non-emergency bill. I think the stimulus bill was definitely a crisis response action.

[robeiae]

That site is dishonest in one very severe way -- they log exactly ONE promise made by Bush.
The one I linked to? It wasn't around in 2000.

[James81]

James81: Stop Robeiae or absolutewrite will cease to exist.

[nighttimer]

But all you did was criticize the source. You offered nothing to counter the specifics in the story. Why is that?

Because if the messenger if full of bullshit so is the message.

World Net Daily is not a reputable source. Period. End of sentence.

[Contemplative]

Because if the messenger if full of bullshit so is the message.

This isn't really true, you know. It's actually very myopic.

World Net Daily is not a reputable source. Period. End of sentence.

Agreed. They're not credible. So we can't trust factual assertions they make. The conspiracy theory bullshit about Obama's birth, for example.

But all the individual items in the broken promises list are verifiable from other sources. Some are distorting facts to make the argument that the promise is broken when I don't think that's true, or true in only the most semantic sense, but they're an argument, not information, and thus can't be dismissed just based on the source's reputability.

[Contemplative]

The one I linked to? It wasn't around in 2000.

I know. I still think that a site compiling only the current president's broken promises and not putting it in the context of past presidents is more in the work of manufacturing shocking numbers than doing any meaningful kind of statistics.

Politicians -- all politicians -- lie. A lot. Stating this is not really meaningful contribution to political discourse. Everyone knows it already.

[bloemmarc]

But, you never gave any specifics as to why Worldnet Daily is Bullshit. So far as I can tell, it's bullshit in your eyes, because you don't like it, and can't back it up with actual facts as to why it is bullshit.

Therefore, I can't take your criticism serious either. You can't just say that Worldnet daily is Bullshit period without answering the question asked of you. That makes you full of bullshit, and not reputable as well.

As far as I can tell, Worldnet Daily has quoted countless sources in their article that I posted. But from my experience most liberals say that everything written is bullshit that they don't agree with. These are the same people(liberals) that worked with Dan Rather.



Because if the messenger if full of bullshit so is the message.

World Net Daily is not a reputable source. Period. End of sentence.

[robeiae]

I know. I still think that a site compiling only the current president's broken promises and not putting it in the context of past presidents is more in the work of manufacturing shocking numbers than doing any meaningful kind of statistics.Well, they seem intent on hitting everyone. It's still in its infant stages, but look at the home page of the "Truth-o-meter":
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/

Again, I think it's an honest effort. The point is not comparative history, it is keeping track of what politicians and pundits claim, then seeing if they are telling the truth. Obama just happens to be the President, now.

What's wrong with such a goal?

Politicians -- all politicians -- lie. A lot. Stating this is not really meaningful contribution to political discourse. Everyone knows it already.Absolutely. But pinpointing their lies is a meaningful contribution, imo.

[Bird of Prey]

http://aphiemi.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/obamas-list-of-broken-promises/



If I'm not mistaken, the broken promise list you quoted was compiled during the second week of March of this year. That would have given President Obama slightly less than two and a half months to fulfill every promise he ever made. He would do that in lieu of tackling a critically endangered economy, and thus further endanger the economy by inviting partisan ire.

Bloemmarc - I didn't vote for Obama, but I really think that what people sometimes ask of the president is unrealistic. It strikes me as impatient and unjustifiably harsh. The people who voted within the confines of the two party system had to have known that they were voting for politics as usual. Surely, very few are so naive as to believe that Obama was a saint. Nevertheless, even I'm willing to reserve judgment for at least a year. He's worth supporting, because much of what he's trying to do along with what he inherited is unprecedented, and there's no question in my mind that he's forced to prioritize.

[mscelina]

I'll agree to the point that you can't hold a candidate to meet all the promises he or she made during their campaigns within the first 100 days or even a year after they take office. However, I'm not seeing much from the Obama White House to indicate that he's making any headway whatsoever toward meeting even some of those promises. In fact, I'm not seeing this administration making any headway on anything at all.

[robeiae]

They've successfully cooked Dodd's goose...

[mscelina]

Silly robovowels! Goose is for Christmas, not Easter.

[robeiae]

But think about it: one of the most powerful dem Senators, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is likely gonna be opposed --hard--in the next election cycle PRIMARY. But not because he failed to support the party and its leadership, but because he supported both, to the hilt. Think about it.

[mscelina]

Hmm...that really is almost like a present, isn't it? Maybe...dare I say it?...Christmas in July?

[nighttimer]

But, you never gave any specifics as to why Worldnet Daily is Bullshit. So far as I can tell, it's bullshit in your eyes, because you don't like it, and can't back it up with actual facts as to why it is bullshit.

Therefore, I can't take your criticism serious either. You can't just say that Worldnet daily is Bullshit period without answering the question asked of you. That makes you full of bullshit, and not reputable as well.

As far as I can tell, Worldnet Daily has quoted countless sources in their article that I posted. But from my experience most liberals say that everything written is bullshit that they don't agree with. These are the same people(liberals) that worked with Dan Rather.

I don't give a damn what you think about me bloemmarc.

[Joe270]

Easy, Night.

Don't take it personal, just back up your claims. Pretty easy either way, given the internet.

Same goes for Marc, if you can pin him down, do so.

Get your dukes up.

[Don]

But think about it: one of the most powerful dem Senators, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, is likely gonna be opposed --hard--in the next election cycle PRIMARY. But not because he failed to support the party and its leadership, but because he supported both, to the hilt. Think about it.

Hmm...that really is almost like a present, isn't it? Maybe...dare I say it?...Christmas in July?
Mmmmmm, Goose. God bless us every one. :)

[cethklein]

No, I don't have a link to that. I just had a friend who told me it.

We need a government that is responsible itself, and also willing to hold the welfare freeloaders responsible for their actions. What really makes me mad is that many of these people act like they are entitled to our tax dollars.

My wife is 20, and I am 22. We married young, and have two young children. She is a stay at home mom, and going to college. I work about 55 hours a week, and sign up for all the overtime I can get. I just expect others to do the same, or atleast try to.

I had a friend tell me that Elvis is still alive.

Seriously, you're basing your beliefs off of a friggin chain email. Is it safe to assume you also believe Barack Obama is a Muslim and that if you sign up for certain websites you'll be guaranteed to meet "hot girlz in ur area"?

[cethklein]

The thing is, at some point in time, we're going to have to stop correlating black to black, woman to woman, white to white, because it's racist, it's sexist and frankly, it's stupid. There are far more appropriate liberals that make apt comparisons to Keyes than Jackson, albeit they happen to be white.

No one made that correlation until you did, actually. Race was never a part of this discussion until YOU made it part of it.The thought that we cannot question a black man without being labeled a racist is absurd (and racist in and of itself)

I'll also point out that a certain someone who shall remain nameless once claimed during the election that not voting for Hillary was tantamount to sexism.

[dmytryp]

Is it safe to assume you also believe Barack Obama is a Muslim and that if you sign up for certain websites you'll be guaranteed to meet "hot girlz in ur area"?
this was rather uncalled for

[Bird of Prey]

No one made that correlation until you did, actually. Race was never a part of this discussion until YOU made it part of it.The thought that we cannot question a black man without being labeled a racist is absurd (and racist in and of itself)

I'll also point out that a certain someone who shall remain nameless once claimed during the election that not voting for Hillary was tantamount to sexism.


You should read in context now and then. Just try. It might help you.

[Bird of Prey]

I had a friend tell me that Elvis is still alive.

Seriously, you're basing your beliefs off of a friggin chain email. Is it safe to assume you also believe Barack Obama is a Muslim and that if you sign up for certain websites you'll be guaranteed to meet "hot girlz in ur area"?

That's disgusting. Really. Disgusting.