Are there any Obamatards left?

[neopryn]

i am an obamatard

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by

what about his promise to line item veto everything that comes across his desk? perhaps i don't understand the process enough.. but why didn't he use that on the recent 400+ billion dollar spending bill to trim out some of that bullshit?

There is no line item veto. I dont remember that promise, but if he made it it was pure bs.

[beef curtains]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

anti-pop...

that was cute, but, and Im not gonna get in a slagging contest over it, but I've been studying Karl Marx since I was a kid after reading 1984 and then Animal Farm.

Everything Obama has done is blueprint Marxism. In fact it's never been more plainly evident in a President (probably the closest before him was his predecessor because Bush followed the Nazi doctrine his grandfather Prescott loved so much, also of which patterned after Marx's book, The Communist Manifesto, which was actually supposed to be called the Socialist Manifesto but they got found out essentially and wanted the book out there so they changed the name.)

but I digress...

George Soros already shattered one currency (the Pound) and is about to do it with another and his boy Obama is the perfect puppet.

You talk about socialism like its a bad thing...

[<sp3]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

There is no line item veto. I dont remember that promise, but if he made it it was pure bs.

ok yea.. the power does not exist to do so now.. but he said something along the way about how he would try to get it back.. i don't know if this is possible or not.

Its also probably a bad idea.. congress should just not pass exorbitant spending bills in the first place.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by

ok yea.. the power does not exist to do so now.. but he said something along the way about how he would try to get it back.. i don't know if this is possible or not.

Its also probably a bad idea.. congress should just not pass exorbitant spending bills in the first place.

Are you just making shit up now

[Future Boy]

The closest thing to that promise was something about him going line by line of the budget. Which is probably just as much bs, but who knows how many people have/will say that in this lifetime.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by beef curtains

You talk about socialism like its a bad thing...

oh boy. you talk about government programs as if they're effective, streamlined, well run, and efficient.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

oh boy. you talk about government programs as if they're effective, streamlined, well run, and efficient.

you talk like you're an idiot

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

you talk like you're an idiot

Let the grown ups talk. Until you have something more than reactionary insults because you don't understand anything about a subject but "that's the way it should be because i finally got my driver's license and thus know everything" to offer to a discussion i'd stay on the general board

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Let the grown ups talk. Until you have something more than reactionary insults because you don't understand anything about a subject but "that's the way it should be because i finally got my driver's license and thus know everything" to offer to a discussion i'd stay on the general board

I don't even know what this means, you fuck. What subject don't I understand? Obamatardism? You're such an indecipherable old prick.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I don't even know what this means, you fuck. What subject don't I understand? Obamatardism? You're such an indecipherable old prick.

That's exactly my point - you don't understand anything, so you just come in here and call people "pricks" when they say anything against your "beliefs" like socialism. It really isn't a surprise though that you favor that type of government since you've never had to live in t he real world and everyone taking care of you is your only known life.

Shouldn't you be in bed 'fore Mommy yells at you?

[beef curtains]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

oh boy. you talk about government programs as if they're effective, streamlined, well run, and efficient.

Never said any of that. Everything has its problems, but the services they provide are necessary, not necessarily cost effective.

Case in point - a public hospital, or fire station is operating in the red. Should we raise funds or raise taxes to keep them open (assuming every cost cutting measure that doesn't lower public safety services has already been implemented) or do we just shut it down? I think a lot of people here would rather see them shut down. I'd rather pay an extra $3.70 a year in property taxes (TAX DEDUCTION BTW)or that extra 0.08% in sales tax to keep them operating. It isn't an issue of whether something is cost effective in numbers on paper, but whether something is needed for the benefit of the public.

[Thaniel Buckner]

im usually the fly on the wall on this board and redbreegull is by far the bigger dumbass.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

That's exactly my point - you don't understand anything, so you just come in here and call people "pricks" when they say anything against your "beliefs" like socialism. It really isn't a surprise though that you favor that type of government since you've never had to live in t he real world and everyone taking care of you is your only known life.

Shouldn't you be in bed 'fore Mommy yells at you?

It really isn't a surprise though that I favor that type of government because it makes more sense than the current system and I am a rational human being. Also, because I am not a complete douche bag anti-communitarian individualistic extremist who thinks a world in which no one gave a shit about anybody else would be a real hunky dory place.

[Nimrod's Son]

Haha, you're so out of touch you think those who believe in a Republic are "extremists"

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

It really isn't a surprise though that I favor that type of government because it makes more sense than the current system and I am a rational human being. Also, because I am not a complete douche bag anti-communitarian individualistic extremist who thinks a world in which no one gave a shit about anybody else would be a real hunky dory place.

explain to me how an extreme individualist doesn't give a shit about anyone else

[ryan patrick]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

oh boy. you talk about government programs as if they're effective, streamlined, well run, and efficient.

not all of them, but no-bid contracting for jobs the government could do doesn't end up being effective or efficient either.

texas is a disaster in this area and spends way more money on private contractors to do highway and road work than it would take to do it with state employees.

TxDOT contracting more, at higher costs

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

not all of them, but no-bid contracting for jobs the government could do doesn't end up being effective or efficient either.

oh, i agree. contracts need to be won in an open market when the government hires them. however the main focus here isn't government control vs. no bid contracts, it really is more government control vs. private control

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Mariner

explain to me how an extreme individualist doesn't give a shit about anyone else

I once made a comment that as Americans we have certain social responsibilities and obligations to our countrymen and to our community to which Nimrod replied (paraphrased), "No, we don't. Maybe you do, if it helps you sleep better at night."

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Haha, you're so out of touch you think those who believe in a Republic are "extremists"

You're so out of touch you assume socialism and republicanism are mutually exclusive.

[Nimrod's Son]

Jesus, no wonder so many people have you on their ignore list.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by ryan patrick

texas is a disaster in this area and spends way more money on private contractors to do highway and road work than it would take to do it with state employees.

TxDOT contracting more, at higher costs

true for nearly everything government related here

the whole state government is awful, it's set up badly and it works to the interests of who has money, even when it's a good thing. For example, that law to immunize girls against cervical cancer was passed here despite the state's enormous bible thumping population, because governor goodhair was deep in the pockets of the pharmaceutical company that provided the immunization.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Jesus, no wonder so many people have you on their ignore list.

i'd venture to say that an equal number would have you on ignore if they were afforded that option

this is an argument between Tweedledumb and Nimrod's Son though.

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I once made a comment that as Americans we have certain social responsibilities and obligations to our countrymen and to our community to which Nimrod replied (paraphrased), "No, we don't. Maybe you do, if it helps you sleep better at night."

And I agree. I am one individual human being. I can ultimately control no one but myself and must answer to no one but myself. To think or act otherwise will put me in an unworkable posture against the flow of reality. It follows, then, that I think of obligation as an artificial, unstable concept applied to induce people to enter into relationships and transactions which they would otherwise not choose to be a part of. I think societies based upon, infused with, or tied together by obligational relationships are unsustainable endeavors almost certain to be wrought with violence, corruption, decay, power abuse, inequality, injustice, waste, pollution, etc.

I think that in the long run, the only way humanity is going to make its way out of the mess we've made of ourselves is to realize that no one is obligated to do or think anything to or for or with anyone else. I think that approach is probably the only way to give us the farsight, flexibility, and clarity of vision to properly see the many ways in which we are indeed all in this together, and then act accordingly. I think we have a lot of trial and error and hardship and near-extinction ahead of us, and we will certainly not make it through all that if we keep ourselves half blindfolded with inherently rigid, unstable, and unjust concepts like 'obligation.' Yes, surprise, I think that there is such a thing as the common / collective good, but we are not (as far as we know) a fully or fundamentally collective mind. We can't pretend our way into a collective mindset and hope to arrive at our collective best interest. Anyone preaching that path is either a purveyor of exploitation, oppression, and death or is an unwitting instrument therof. I think if we're to have any hope we must aim and strive to eventually give our society the structure, topology, and articulation (or lack thereof) appropriate to the nature of our consciousness and the real/fundamental boundaries of the control that consciousness has over other consciousness and the rest of reality. Obligation is for imaginary, un-diverse, and ultimately vulnerable societies. We aren't a human beehive, and we won't survive into the future or do our world, its life, and each other any good by becoming the Borg.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Mariner

And I agree. I am one individual human being. I can ultimately control no one but myself and must answer to no one but myself. To think or act otherwise will put me in an unworkable posture against the flow of reality. It follows, then, that I think of obligation as an artificial, unstable concept applied to induce people to enter into relationships and transactions which they would otherwise not choose to be a part of. I think societies based upon, infused with, or tied together by obligational relationships are unsustainable endeavors almost certain to be wrought with violence, corruption, decay, power abuse, inequality, injustice, waste, pollution, etc.

I think that in the long run, the only way humanity is going to make its way out of the mess we've made of ourselves is to realize that no one is obligated to do or think anything to or for or with anyone else. I think that approach is probably the only way to give us the farsight, flexibility, and clarity of vision to properly see the many ways in which we are indeed all in this together, and then act accordingly. I think we have a lot of trial and error and hardship and near-extinction ahead of us, and we will certainly not make it through all that if we keep ourselves half blindfolded with inherently rigid, unstable, and unjust concepts like 'obligation.' Yes, surprise, I think that there is such a thing as the common / collective good, but we are not (as far as we know) a fully or fundamentally collective mind. We can't pretend our way into a collective mindset and hope to arrive at our collective best interest. Anyone preaching that path is either a purveyor of exploitation, oppression, and death or is an unwitting instrument therof. I think if we're to have any hope we must aim and strive to eventually give our society the structure, topology, and articulation (or lack thereof) appropriate to the nature of our consciousness and the real/fundamental boundaries of the control that consciousness has over other consciousness and the rest of reality. Obligation is for imaginary, un-diverse, and ultimately vulnerable societies. We aren't a human beehive, and we won't survive into the future or do our world, its life, and each other any good by becoming the Borg.

You do realize that there are working collectivist cultures in the world, yes? I'm not even proposing collectivism to the point of loss of self-identity or self-importance. But the concept of everyone for themselves simply does not work. Even 200,000 years ago, before the first brick was ever laid or the first word of language was ever spoken, humans lived in clans and families. It seems pretty obvious that we are, by nature, communal animals. It sounds like you are preaching some weird Stirnerian anarchism. I don't know how you figure that societies based on obligations all fail when social contract would not exist if people did not need each other for something. We DO need each other, and we DO have responsibilities to each other.

[Nimrod's Son]

Perhaps you're not aware but it is possible to live in a city and still not be obligated to anyone else right

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I don't know how you figure that societies based on obligations all fail when social contract would not exist if people did not need each other for something. We DO need each other, and we DO have responsibilities to each other.

Of course we need each other. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should realize it is in her or his best interest to live, work, play, and cooperate with other people and to have each other's backs and support the weakest/neediest members of their community. The concept of 'everyone for themselves', as you apply it to my reasoning, then, is a misleading statement. I am not advocating that everyone solely pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and never help anyone else out. I am of the opinion that getting someone to help someone else by telling them they're obligated is a disingenuous, unnecessary, and ultimately unworkable strategy. I think the difference we have is over how to best communicate to someone the reality that cooperation, etc. is beneficial.

If you just tell someone, "you have to do this, you're obligated to us," even if you're right, you're building some key social activity/relationship upon the threat of punishment or expulsion. Instead you should demonstrate to someone that we're all in this together and that it's in their best interest to engage in the activity/relationship in question. Then tell them they're certainly free to either do it or to not, which is ultimately far more honest and accurate than "you simply must!!" If they decide to engage they're coming from a much more honest, understanding, stable, and sustainable place, and that social activity/relationship has a more solid footing and much better chances at becoming a longstanding thing. On the other hand if they decide not to that is certainly their choice. It follows, then, that it is also the rightful choice of every other individual in that community to interact with that person however they see fit, and that person should expect his decision to influence how some people treat him.

Sound perfect? Of course not, but at least it's in line with reality. The concept of obligation (as I think you're using, yes this conversation is dancing along the edge of a semantic minefield) is simply not. You can tell someone that they're obligated to do something, that they just have to, but in reality they've got their own brain and their own ability to choose; such a statement, then, is at best incomplete and at worst dishonest. If something is ultimately in a person's best interest and you're trying to get them to do it, all you should have to do is give them a little information. If they still choose not to, you should be glad your endeavor has lost an idiot. If something is ultimately not in a person's best interest, no one should be trying to get them to do it anyways, which is where concepts like "obligation" are harmful to people and to society.

[Future Boy]

yeah

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Mariner

Of course we need each other. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should realize it is in her or his best interest to live, work, play, and cooperate with other people and to have each other's backs and support the weakest/neediest members of their community. The concept of 'everyone for themselves', as you apply it to my reasoning, then, is a misleading statement. I am not advocating that everyone solely pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and never help anyone else out. I am of the opinion that getting someone to help someone else by telling them they're obligated is a disingenuous, unnecessary, and ultimately unworkable strategy. I think the difference we have is over how to best communicate to someone the reality that cooperation, etc. is beneficial.

If you just tell someone, "you have to do this, you're obligated to us," even if you're right, you're building some key social activity/relationship upon the threat of punishment or expulsion. Instead you should demonstrate to someone that we're all in this together and that it's in their best interest to engage in the activity/relationship in question. Then tell them they're certainly free to either do it or to not, which is ultimately far more honest and accurate than "you simply must!!" If they decide to engage they're coming from a much more honest, understanding, stable, and sustainable place, and that social activity/relationship has a more solid footing and much better chances at becoming a longstanding thing. On the other hand if they decide not to that is certainly their choice. It follows, then, that it is also the rightful choice of every other individual in that community to interact with that person however they see fit, and that person should expect his decision to influence how some people treat him.

Sound perfect? Of course not, but at least it's in line with reality. The concept of obligation (as I think you're using, yes this conversation is dancing along the edge of a semantic minefield) is simply not. You can tell someone that they're obligated to do something, that they just have to, but in reality they've got their own brain and their own ability to choose; such a statement, then, is at best incomplete and at worst dishonest. If something is ultimately in a person's best interest and you're trying to get them to do it, all you should have to do is give them a little information. If they still choose not to, you should be glad your endeavor has lost an idiot. If something is ultimately not in a person's best interest, no one should be trying to get them to do it anyways, which is where concepts like "obligation" are harmful to people and to society.

I don't mean that anyone should be forced to do anything. Having an obligation or responsibility does not imply that you are bound to it lest you be punished by law or anything, but like shirking any responsibility, the consequences are going to be negative, even if it is just that everyone thinks you are a selfish douche bag with no vision outside your own backyard.

Edit: Rousseau would say you could be forced to be free. Which is interesting.

[Tchocky]

Yes, Obama hasn't exactly lit it up so far, BUT....

Commentary: GOP means 'Got 0 Plans' - CNN.com

Obama inherited an ungodly mess: a $1.2 trillion deficit, an economy that was careening from recession into depression, a collapse in effective demand, the disintegration of the real estate market and a financial meltdown that spanned the globe and brought multibillion-dollar institutions to their knees. That's not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and the Mexican drug war.

If this were "Sesame Street," the announcer would be saying, "This program brought to you by the letters G, O and P." None of the crises the president is addressing were of his creation. All of them were created or worsened by the Republicans who ran the House of Representatives, Senate and White House for years.

And so the American people turned to Obama to bring change -- and change he has brought. He's moving on all fronts: addressing the housing foreclosure crisis, the banking crisis, the unemployment crisis. Did I mention that all of these crises were courtesy of the Republicans who ran this country for years? Good.

Now the Republicans have what we Texans call the chutzpah to criticize Obama for doing too much. Maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't have to be fixing so many problems if the Republicans hadn't created so many problems.

The Republicans are like an arsonist who complains that the fire department is wasting water. Obama is trying to handle an immediate crisis while also laying the foundation for long-term growth. The Republicans are doing neither. They have no plan to stop the loss of jobs or to get capital markets functioning properly -- and they certainly have no plans for health care, education or energy, which are the keys to both long-term economic growth and long-term deficit reduction.

All the energy -- indeed all debate -- is on the progressive side of the aisle. The Obama administration's only intellectual challengers are on the left, where economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and others are offering a vigorous critique and proposing alternative solutions.

But where are the Republicans?

Doing nothing but complaining.

Unless and until they do offer an alternative, they really have no right to whine about the president.

For now at least, GOP stands for "Got 0 Plans."

[Nimrod's Son]

at least post something that has some substance to it. two quickies:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

None of the crises the president is addressing were of his creation. All of them were created or worsened by the Republicans who ran the House of Representatives, Senate and White House for years.

Gee, I forgot that the Democrats have been in control of Congress for a while now. So did the author!!!!!

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Unless and until they do offer an alternative, they really have no right to whine about the president.

They have by trying to modify some of the bills that have come through Congress, but right now the GOP has no power whatsoever to stop anything or to propose anything. Also it's ok to point out what's wrong with a certain course of action without proposing one.

If you're on a sinking ship and someone proposes lighting fires to evaporate the water away, it's ok to say "uh, that's a stupid fucking idea. I'm sure we can come up with something better."

It would be easy to say it's one party's fault but what they really want is half the country blaming one party and the other half blaming the other.

Both parties had their hands in this.